Gold L S, Slone T H
Life Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California.
J Toxicol Environ Health. 1993 May;39(1):143-57. doi: 10.1080/15287399309531741.
Prediction of a positive result in rodent carcinogenesis bioassays using two instead of four sex-species groups is examined for the subset of chemicals in the Carcinogenic Potency Database that have been tested in four sex-species groups and are positive in at least one (n = 212). Under the conditions of these bioassays, a very high proportion of rodent carcinogens that are identified as positive by tests in four groups is also identified by results from one sex of each species (86-92%). Additionally, chemicals that are classified as "two-species carcinogens" or "multiple-site carcinogens" on the basis of results from four sex-species groups are also identified as two-species or multiple-site carcinogens on the basis of two sex-species groups. Carcinogenic potency (TD50) values for the most potent target site are similar when based on results from two compared to four sex-species groups. Eighty-five percent of the potency values are within a factor of 2 of those obtained from tests in 4 sex-species groups, 94% are within a factor of 4, and 98% are within a factor of 10. This result is expected because carcinogenic potency values are constrained to a narrow range about the maximum dose tested in a bioassay, and the maximum doses administered to rats and mice are highly correlated and similar in dose level. Information that can be known in advance of a 2-yr bioassay (mutagenicity, class, route, and maximum dose to test) does not identify groups of rodent carcinogens for which four sex-species groups are required to identify carcinogenicity. The range of accurate prediction of carcinogenicity using only male rats and female mice is 93% among mutagens and 88% among nonmutagens; for various routes of administration, 88-100%; for various chemical classes, 75-100%; and for various levels of the maximum dose tested, 81-100%. Results are similar for the pair male rats and male mice. Using a strength of evidence approach, weaker carcinogens are somewhat less likely than stronger carcinogens to be identified by two sex-species groups. Strength of evidence is measured using the proportion of experiments on a chemical that are positive, the extent to which tumors occur in animals that die before terminal sacrifice, and whether the chemical induces tumors at more than one site and in more than one species.
对于致癌潜能数据库中已在四个性别 - 物种组中进行过测试且至少在一个组中呈阳性的化学物质子集(n = 212),研究了使用两个而非四个性别 - 物种组来预测啮齿动物致癌生物测定中的阳性结果。在这些生物测定的条件下,在四个组的测试中被鉴定为阳性的啮齿动物致癌物中,有非常高的比例也可通过每个物种的一种性别的结果鉴定出来(86% - 92%)。此外,基于四个性别 - 物种组的结果被归类为“双物种致癌物”或“多部位致癌物”的化学物质,基于两个性别 - 物种组的结果也被鉴定为双物种或多部位致癌物。与基于四个性别 - 物种组的结果相比,基于两个性别 - 物种组的结果得出的最主要靶部位的致癌潜能(TD50)值相似。85%的潜能值与在四个性别 - 物种组测试中获得的值相差不超过2倍,94%相差不超过4倍,98%相差不超过10倍。这个结果是预期的,因为致癌潜能值被限制在生物测定中测试的最大剂量附近的一个狭窄范围内,并且给予大鼠和小鼠的最大剂量在剂量水平上高度相关且相似。在两年生物测定之前可以预先知道的信息(诱变性、类别、给药途径和测试的最大剂量)并不能识别出需要四个性别 - 物种组来鉴定致癌性的啮齿动物致癌物组。仅使用雄性大鼠和雌性小鼠对致癌性进行准确预测的范围在诱变剂中为93%,在非诱变剂中为88%;对于各种给药途径,为88% - 100%;对于各种化学类别,为75% - 100%;对于各种测试的最大剂量水平,为81% - 100%。雄性大鼠和雄性小鼠这一组的结果相似。使用证据强度方法,较弱的致癌物比强致癌物通过两个性别 - 物种组被鉴定出来的可能性略小。证据强度是通过一种化学物质的阳性实验比例、在终末处死前死亡的动物中肿瘤发生的程度以及该化学物质是否在多个部位和多个物种中诱导肿瘤来衡量的。