Evaluation and Interpretation of Carcinogenesis Bioassay Results

  • Cipriano CuetoJr.
Part of the Contemporary Biomedicine book series (CB, volume 4)


Although various approaches to carcinogenesis testing have been proposed [e. g., Weisburger and Williams (1)] involving short-term in vitro tests and limited or short-term in vivo tests using a tumorigenic endpoint, chronic carcinogenesis bioassay in animals is still the method most commonly used to detect the potential carcinogenicity of chemicals to humans. These bioassay methods have various levels of sophistication, sensitivity, and predictability. The tests are usually performed in mice and rats because of their relatively short lifespan, their known historical control-tumor incidence, their cost, and their availability relative to other species. The results of these tests are used for species and dose extrapolation and as a measure, or more properly an indication, of the potential risk to humans of the compound tested, as well as a means of evaluating the relative carcinogenic activity of chemicals within a specific biological testing system.


Test Animal Test Chemical Tumor Incidence Feed Consumption Technical Report Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weisburger, J. H., and Williams, G. M., Science 214, 401 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chu, K. C., Cueto, C., and Ward, J. M., J. Toxicol. Environ. Hlth. 8, 251 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arcos, J. C., Argus, M. F., and Wolf, G., Chemical Introduction of Cancer, vol. 1, New York, Academic Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berenblum, I. (ed.), Carcinogenicity Testing (UICC Technical Report Series, Vol. 2), Geneva International Union Against Cancer, 1969.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Health and Welfare, The Testing of Chemicals for Carcinogenicity, Mutagenicity and Teratogenicity, Ottawa, Ministry of Health and Welfare, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golberg, L. (ed.), Carcinogenesis Testing of Chemicals, Cleveland, CRC Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sontag, J. M., Page, N. P., and Saffioti, U., Guidelines for Carcinogen Bioassay in Small Rodents, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 76–801, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Page, N. P., Concepts of a Bioassay Program in Environmental Carcinogenesis, in Kraybill, H., and Mehlman, M. C. (eds.); Environmental Cancer, New York, Wiley, 1977, pp. 87–171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer: Monographs on the Long-Term and Short-Term Screening Assays for Carcinogens: A Critical Appraisal, Geneva World Health Organization, 1980. Supplement 2.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Environmental Protection Agency: Proposed Guidelines for Registering Pesticides in the US.: Hazards Evaluation, Federal Register 43 (163), 37336 (1978).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Environmental Protection Agency: Proposed Good Laboratory Practice Guidelines for Toxicology Testing, Federal Register 45 (77), 26373 (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group: Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks, Federal Register 44 (131), 39858 (1979).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Food and Drug Administration, Non-clinical Laboratory Studies: Good Laboratory Practice Regulations, Federal Register 43 (248), 59886 (1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Cancer Institute: Bioassy of Nitrofen for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 26, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–826, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of Dibromochloropropane for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 28, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–828, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of 1,2-Dichloroethane for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 55, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–1361, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of Endosulfan for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 62, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–1312, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of Tris (2,3-dibrompropyl) Phosphate for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 86, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78–1326, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Cancer Institute, Bioassay of 1,2-Dibromoethane for Possible Carcinogenicity. Technical Report Series No. 86, Bethesda, DHEW Publication No. 78–1336, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Agency for Reseach on Cancer: Monographs on Industrial Processes Associated with Cancer in Humans, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1979, Supplement 1.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ward, J. M., Goodman, D. G., Griesemer, R. A., Hardisty, J. F., Schueler, J. D., Squire, R. A., and Strandberg, J. D., J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 2, 371 (1978).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    US Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Report of the Secretary’s Commission on Pesticides and Their Relationship to Environmental Health, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office, 1969.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Squire, R. A., and Levitt, M., Cancer Res. 35, 3214 (1975).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan, E. L., and Meier, P., J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 53, 457 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cox, D. R., J. R. Stat. Soc. B34, 187 (1972).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tarone, R. E., Biometriks 62, 679 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cox, D. R., Analysis of Binary Data, London, Methuen, 1970.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Armitage, P., Statistical Methods in Medical Research, New York, Wiley, 1971, pp. 362–365. Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, D. G., Breslow, N., and Gart, J. J., Comput. Biomed. Res. 10, (1977).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fears, T. R., Tarone, R. E., and Chu, K. C., Cancer Res. 37, 1941 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tarone, R. E., Chu, K. C., and Ward, J. M., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66, 1175 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Cancer Institute: Bioassay of Chloramben for Possible Carcinogenicity, Technical Report Series No. 25, Bethesda, DHEW Publications No. (NIH) 77–825, 1977.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Griesemer, R. A., and Cueto, C.: Toward a Classification Scheme for Degrees of Experimental Evidence for Carcinogenicity of Chemicals for Animals, in Montesano, R., Bartsch, H., and Tomatis, L. (eds)., Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Carcinogen Screening Tests, Lyon (IARC Scientific Publication No. 27 ), 1980.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Staffa, J. A., and Mehlman, M. A. (eds.), Innovations in Cancer Risk Assessment (ED o1 Study), Pathotex Publishers, Park Forest South, Illinois, 1979, pp. 1–246.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    SOT, Society of Toxicology EDo1 Task Force Symposium, Fund. appl. Toxicol. 1, 26 (1981).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Squire, R. A., Science 214, 877 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The HAMANA Press Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cipriano CuetoJr.

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations