Advertisement

Carcinogenicity

  • Paul HowroydEmail author
Chapter
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter explains to the nonpathologist the design, conduct, and interpretation of pathology evaluations of in vivo tests for carcinogenicity. Tumor terminology and other terms used by pathologists in reports of carcinogenicity studies are explained, and the biology of neoplasms is summarized. The design of rodent carcinogenicity studies, their histopathological evaluation, their place in product development, and the application of their results to humans are discussed.

Tumor terminology can be daunting to the nonpathologist; there is far more background noise in carcinogenicity studies than in other types of toxicology study, it can be difficult to apply terminology and diagnostic criteria consistently, and it can be particularly difficult to predict the relevance (or lack of it) to humans of induced rodent neoplasia. However, the same basic principles apply to the design, evaluation, and interpretation of carcinogenicity studies as to other in vivo toxicology studies.

Key words

Carcinogenicity Rodent Neoplasia Terminology Study design Histopathology evaluation Human relevance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Aida Diaz-Bayon, Kaori Isobe, Stuart Naylor, Petrina Rogerson, and Carol Strepka for their help in writing this chapter. In addition, Aaron Sargeant contributed much of the information on transgenic mouse studies.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author is an employee of Charles River Laboratories, which supplies rodents for research and carries out many of the in vitro and in vivo safety assessment tests discussed in this chapter. The views expressed are those of the author.

References

  1. Ames BN, Gold LS (2000) Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction. Mutat Res 447:3–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldrick P (2015) Carcinogenicity evaluation: comparison of tumor data from dual control groups in the Sprague-Dawley rat. Toxicol Pathol 33:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu J et al (2015) Preclinical biosafety evaluation of cell-based therapies: emerging global paradigms. Toxicol Pathol 43:115–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betton G et al (1988) Gastric ECL-cell hyperplasia and carcinoids in rodents following chronic administration of H2-antagonists SK&F 93479 and oxmetidine and omeprazole. Toxicol Pathol 16:288–298Google Scholar
  5. Beyaert R et al (2013) Cancer risk in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Mol Cancer 12:98PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carcinogenic Potential. EMEA (2002) CPMP/SWP/2877/00. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003258.pdf, Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  7. Chandra S et al (2015) Dermal toxicity studies: factors impacting study interpretation and outcome. Toxicol Pathol 43:474–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Characiejus D et al (2010) “First do no harm” and the importance of prediction in oncology. EPMA J 1:369–375PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen SM (1998) Urinary bladder carcinogenesis. Toxicol Pathol 26:121–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen SM, Arnold LL (2016) Critical role of toxicologic pathology in a short-term screen for carcinogenicity. J Toxicol Pathol 29:215–227Google Scholar
  11. Ettlin RA et al (2010a) Successful drug development despite adverse preclinical findings. Part 1: processes to address issues and most important findings. J Toxicol Pathol 23:189–211PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ettlin RA et al (2010b) Successful drug development despite adverse preclinical findings. Part 2: examples. J Toxicol Pathol 23:213–234PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faccini JM et al (1992) IFSTP guidelines for the design and interpretation of the chronic rodent carcinogenicity bioassay. Exp Toxicol Pathol 44:443–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Festing MFW (1995) Use of a Multistrain assay could improve the NTP carcinogenesis bioassay. Environ Health Perspect 103:44–52PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazier KS et al (2012) Proliferative and nonproliferative lesions of the rat and mouse urinary system. Toxicol Pathol 40:14S–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham MJ, Lake BG (2008) Induction of drug metabolism: species differences and toxicological relevance. Toxicology 254:184–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harada T et al (1989) Morphological and stereological characterization of hepatic foci of cellular alteration in control Fischer 344 rats. Toxicol Pathol 17:579–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haseman JK, Rao GN (1992) Effects of corn oil, time-related changes, and inter-laboratory variability on tumor occurrence in control Fischer 344 (F344/N) rats. Toxicol Pathol 20:52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haseman JK et al (2003) Effect of diet and animal care/housing protocols on body weight, survival, tumor incidences, and nephropathy severity of F344 rats in chronic studies. Toxicol Pathol 31:674–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Highman B et al (1980) Neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions induced in female C3H mice by diets containing diethylstilbestrol or 17β-estradiol. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 4:81–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. ICH (International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use); Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use; S2(R1) (2011). http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S2_R1/Step4/S2R1_Step4.pdf, Accessed 13 Nov 2018
  22. ICH (International conference on harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use); Guideline on the need for carcinogenicity studies of pharmaceuticals; S1A (1995). https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Safety/S1A/Step4/S1A_Guideline.pdf, Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  23. Jacobs AC, Brown PC (2015) Regulatory forum opinion piece: transgenic/alternative carcinogenicity assays: a retrospective review of studies submitted to CDER/FDA 1997–2014. Toxicol Pathol 43:605–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobs AC, Hatfield KP (2012) History of chronic toxicity and animal carcinogenicity studies for pharmaceuticals. Vet Pathol 50:324–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James SJ et al (1997) Characterization of cellular response to silicone implants in rats: implications for foreign-body carcinogenesis. Biomaterials 18:667–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King-Herbert A, Thayer K (2006) NTP workshop: animal models for the NTP Rodent cancer bioassay: stocks and strains - should we switch? Toxicol Pathol 34:802–805PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kusakawa S et al (2015) Characterization of in vivo tumorigenicity tests using severe immunodeficient NOD/Shi-scid IL2Rgamma null mice for detection of tumorigenic cellular impurities in human cell-processed therapeutic products. Regen Ther 1:30–37PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laast VA et al (2014) Distinguishing cystic degeneration from other aging lesions in the adrenal cortex of Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicol Pathol 42:823–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lapp S et al (2018) Best practice approach for assessment of microchip-associated tumors in preclinical safety studies: position of the Registry of Industrial Toxicology Animal-data (RITA). Toxicol Pathol 46:728–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenz B et al (2005) Modulation of oral squamous cell carcinoma incidence in rats via diet and a novel calcium channel antagonist. Toxicol Pathol 33:356–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malarkey DE et al (2018) Carcinogenesis: manifestation and mechanisms. In: Wallig MA, Haschek WM, Rousseaux CG, Bolon B, Mahler BW (eds) Fundamentals of toxicologic pathology, 3rd edn. Elsevier IncGoogle Scholar
  32. Mann PC et al (2012) International harmonization of toxicologic pathology nomenclature: an overview and review of basic principles. Toxicol Pathol 40(Suppl):7S–13SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Massarelli R et al (2012) Comparison of historical control data in two strains of rat used in carcinogenicity studies. https://www.criver.com/sites/default/files/resources/ComparisonofHistoricalControlDatainTwoStrainsofRatUsedinCarcinogenicityStudies.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2018
  34. McInnes EF et al (2015) Spontaneous nonneoplastic lesions in control Syrian hamsters in three 24-month long-term carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol 43:272–281PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Morton D (2001) The Society of Toxicologic Pathology’s position on statistical methods for rodent carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol 29:670–672Google Scholar
  36. Morton D et al (2010) Recommendations for pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol 38:1118–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nambiar PR, Morton D (2013) The rasH2 mouse model for assessing carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals. Toxicol Pathol 43:1058–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD (2002) Guidance notes for analysis and evaluation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies. ENV/JM/MONO(2002)19. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono(2002)19, Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  39. Osimitz TG et al (2013) Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans. Food Chem Toxicol 60:550–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paules RS et al (2011) Moving forward in human cancer risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 119:739–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peto R (1974) Guidelines on the analysis of tumour rates and death rates in experimental animals. Br J Cancer 29:101PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pritchard JB et al (2003) The role of transgenic mouse models in carcinogen identification. Environ Health Perspect 111:444–454PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rao GN, Haseman JK (1993) Influence of corn oil and diet on body weight, survival, and tumor incidences in F344/N rats. Nutr Cancer 19:21–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rees BJ et al (2017) Development of an in vitro PIG-A gene mutation assay in human cells. Mutagenesis 32:283–297PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Schuh JCL, Funk K (2018) Compilation of international standards and regulatory guidance documents for evaluation of biomaterials, medical devices, and 3-D printed and regenerative medicine products. Toxicol Pathol 5:2018Google Scholar
  46. Selwyn MR (1989) Dual controls, p-value plots and the multiple testing issue in carcinogenicity studies. Environ Health Perspect 82:337–344PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Storer RD et al (2010) An industry perspective on the utility of short-term carcinogenicity testing in transgenic mice in pharmaceutical development. Toxicol Pathol 38:51–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas GA, Williams ED (1991) Evidence for and possible mechanisms of non-genotoxic carcinogenesis in the rodent thyroid. Mutat Res 248:357–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tischler AS et al (2018) Toxic responses of the adrenal medulla. In: Reference module in biomedical sciences. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  50. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Health effects test guidelines OPPTS 870.4200 Carcinogenicity. https://nepis.epa.gov. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  51. United States Food and Drug Administration (2012) Study data specifications, July 18th 2012 https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/DataStandards/StudyDataStandards/UCM312964.pdf, Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  52. United States Food and Drug Administration Redbook 2000 (2007). https://www.fda.gov Accessed November 14 2018
  53. Vahle JL et al (2010) Carcinogenicity assessments of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals: a review of approved molecules and best practice recommendations. Toxicol Pathol 38:522–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zeller A et al (2018) A critical appraisal of the sensitivity of in vivo genotoxicity assays in detecting human carcinogens. Mutagenesis 33:179–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles River Laboratories Edinburgh LtdTranentUK

Personalised recommendations