Regulatory Forum commentary: alternative mouse models for future cancer risk assessment

Daniel Morton1, Frank D Sistare2, Prashant R Nambiar3

  • 1Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA dan.g.morton@pfizer.com.

Toxicologic Pathology
|August 23, 2013
PubMed

Insights

Scientists are revising International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) S1 guidance for carcinogenicity studies. A weight-of-evidence approach may reduce the need for rodent testing, potentially using shorter mouse studies for human cancer risk assessment.

Area of Science:

  • Pharmaceutical sciences
  • Toxicology
  • Regulatory affairs

Background:

  • Current International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) S1 guidance mandates extensive rodent carcinogenicity studies for pharmaceuticals.
  • There is a growing need to optimize drug development timelines and reduce animal testing.
  • Advancements in predictive toxicology offer alternative approaches to traditional long-term studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To discuss proposed revisions to ICH S1 guidance regarding rodent carcinogenicity assessment for small molecule pharmaceuticals.
  • To introduce a weight-of-evidence approach for determining the necessity of carcinogenicity studies.
  • To evaluate the utility of alternative models like the rasH2 mouse in cancer risk assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Discussion and proposal of a weight-of-evidence framework for carcinogenicity study decisions.
  • Consideration of specific scenarios based on human cancer risk levels.
  • Evaluation of 6-month transgenic mouse models (rasH2, p53+/-) and 2-year mouse/rat studies.
  • Planning for a prospective evaluation of the proposed approach.

Main Results:

  • A weight-of-evidence approach could streamline carcinogenicity assessment, potentially reducing the number of required studies.
  • Compounds with high or minimal human cancer risk may bypass certain traditional rodent studies.
  • The rasH2 mouse model shows promise for predicting relevant neoplastic findings with fewer irrelevant outcomes compared to 2-year rodent models.

Conclusions:

  • The proposed revisions aim to make carcinogenicity testing more efficient and relevant.
  • Alternative mouse models may offer valuable insights into human cancer risk assessment.
  • A prospective evaluation is crucial to validate the proposed weight-of-evidence approach before revising ICH S1 guidance.