RESUMEN
This report provides a summary of deliberations conducted under the charge for members of Module D participating in the Naphthalene State-of-the-Science Symposium (NS(3)), Monterey, CA, October 9-12, 2006. The charge directed the panel to ascertain to the best of its ability a consensus judgment of the state-of-the-science concerning the potential for a genotoxic mode of action for naphthalene and its metabolites, with implications for low-dose extrapolations of cancer risk estimates for exposed populations. Where scientific uncertainties remained, the panel was asked to identify which scientific uncertainties (if any) could be resolved through targeted, timely, cost-effective research. The report provides a brief summary of naphthalene genotoxicity; identifies those areas where there is a general scientific consensus regarding the effects of naphthalene; identifies areas of uncertainty regarding the effects of naphthalene; and key questions that currently limit our ability to assess the genotoxic risks of naphthalene. The report also outlines a set of six studies that could resolve some of these key uncertainties.
Asunto(s)
Contaminantes Atmosféricos/toxicidad , Carcinógenos Ambientales/toxicidad , Mutágenos/toxicidad , Naftalenos/toxicidad , Neoplasias/inducido químicamente , Neoplasias/genética , Contaminantes Atmosféricos/metabolismo , Animales , Carcinógenos Ambientales/metabolismo , Consenso , ADN/efectos de los fármacos , Aductos de ADN , Daño del ADN , Humanos , Exposición por Inhalación , Pruebas de Mutagenicidad , Mutágenos/metabolismo , Naftalenos/metabolismo , Neoplasias/metabolismo , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
Defining the mode(s) of action by which chemicals induce tumors in laboratory animals has become a key to judgments about the relevance of such tumor data for human risk assessment. Frameworks for analyzing mode of action information appear in recent U.S. EPA and IPCS publications relating to cancer risk assessment. This FORUM paper emphasizes that mode of action analytical frameworks depend on both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of relevant data and information: (1) presenting key events in the animal mode of action, (2) developing a "concordance" table for side-by-side comparison of key events as defined in animal studies with comparable information from human systems, and (3) using data and information from mode of action analyses, as well as information on relative sensitivity and exposure, to make weight-of-evidence judgments about the relevance of animal tumors for human cancer assessments. The paper features a systematic analysis for using mode of action information from animal and human studies, based in part on case examples involving environmental chemicals and pharmaceuticals.
Asunto(s)
Animales de Laboratorio , Carcinógenos Ambientales/toxicidad , Neoplasias Experimentales/etiología , Neoplasias/etiología , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Xenobióticos/toxicidad , Animales , Carcinógenos Ambientales/clasificación , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , Agencias Internacionales/normas , Cooperación Internacional , Neoplasias/inducido químicamente , Neoplasias Experimentales/inducido químicamente , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/normas , Xenobióticos/clasificaciónRESUMEN
The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue-endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.
Asunto(s)
Carcinógenos/toxicidad , Transformación Celular Neoplásica , Modelos Animales de Enfermedad , Modelos Teóricos , Neoplasias/fisiopatología , Animales , Animales de Laboratorio , Determinación de Punto Final , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Medición de Riesgo , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection AgencyRESUMEN
Millions now suffer the effects of chronic arseniasis related to environmental arsenic exposure. The biological mechanisms responsible for arsenic-induced toxicity and especially chronic effects, including cancer, are not well known. The U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) is participating in an international research effort to improve this understanding by the development of the International Tissue and Tumor Repository for Chronic Arsenosis (ITTRCA). The ITTRCA obtains, archives, and makes available for research purposes, tissues from subjects exposed to arsenic. We provide here a short overview of arsenic-induced pathology, briefly describe arsenic-induced lesions in the skin and liver, and present five case reports from the ITTRCA. Arsenic-induced skin pathology includes hyperkeratosis, pigmentation changes, Bowen disease, squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinomas. A unique spectrum of skin lesions, known as arsenical keratosis, is rather characteristic of chronic arseniasis. Bowen disease, or squamous cell carcinoma in situ of the skin, has been well documented as a consequence of arsenical exposure. A spectrum of liver lesions has also been attributed to chronic arseniasis. Of these, hepatocellular carcinoma, angiosarcoma, cirrhosis, and hepatoportal sclerosis have been associated with arsenic exposure. We present case reports that relate to these health conditions, namely, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and Bowen disease of the skin and hepatocellular carcinoma and angiosarcoma of the liver. Four patients had been treated with arsenical medications for such conditions as asthma, psoriasis, and syphilis, and one case occurred in a boy chronically exposed to arsenic in drinking water.