Douglas G R, Blakey D H, Clayson D B
Mutagenesis Section, Environmental Health Directorate, Ottawa, Ont., Canada.
Mutat Res. 1988 Jul;196(1):83-93. doi: 10.1016/0165-1110(88)90029-2.
Differences between the results of numerical validation studies comparing in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests with the rodent cancer bioassay are leading to the perception that short-term tests predict carcinogenicity only with uncertainty. Consideration of factors such as the pharmacokinetic distribution of chemicals, the systems available for metabolic activation and detoxification, the ability of the active metabolite to move from the site of production to the target DNA, and the potential for expression of the induced lesions, strongly suggests that the disparate sensitivity of the different test systems is a major reason why numerical validation is not more successful. Furthermore, genotoxicity tests should be expected to detect only a subset of carcinogens, namely genotoxic carcinogens, rather than those carcinogens that appear to act by non-genetic mechanisms. Instead of relying primarily on short-term in vitro genotoxicity tests to predict carcinogenic activity, these tests should be used in a manner that emphasizes the accurate determination of mutagenicity or clastogenicity. It must then be determined whether the mutagenic activity is further expressed as carcinogenicity in the appropriate studies using test animals. The prospects for quantitative extrapolation of in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity test results to carcinogenicity requires a much more precise understanding of the critical molecular events in both processes.
