Downes Noel
Toxicol Pathol. 2010 Feb;38(2):324-7. doi: 10.1177/0192623309360214. Epub 2010 Feb 2.
The rodent bioassay has been a mainstay of carcinogenic risk assessment for close to half a century; not that it has been without criticism in that time. As early as the 1990s, there were clearly established shortcomings with regard to relevance and extrapolation, but despite these concerns, this test continues relatively unchanged. As our understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis and the availability of investigative techniques improve, there seems less reason than ever to persist with this exercise that provides little meaningful scientific data at great cost in terms of animal usage and pathologist time. This article highlights possible ways to gather and present data pertinent to carcinogenesis in man and suggests that it is the toxicological pathology community that should take the lead here in persuading regulators that there is great room for improvement in this particular aspect of regulatory pathology.
近半个世纪以来,啮齿动物生物测定一直是致癌风险评估的主要手段;在此期间并非没有受到批评。早在20世纪90年代,就已明确存在相关性和外推方面的缺点,但尽管存在这些问题,该测试仍相对未变。随着我们对致癌机制的理解以及调查技术的可用性不断提高,似乎比以往任何时候都更没有理由继续进行这种以高昂的动物使用成本和病理学家时间成本却几乎提供不了有意义科学数据的试验。本文强调了收集和呈现与人类致癌作用相关数据的可能方法,并表明毒理病理学界应在此带头说服监管机构,在监管病理学的这一特定方面有很大的改进空间。