Comment on the significance of positive carcinogenicity studies using gavage as the route of exposure

There is continuing controversy, extending into regulatory matters, over the significance to human health of positive results in carcinogenicity studies in animals using the gavage technique as the route of exposure. Our review of a nonrandom sample of 117 chemicals or chemical processes listed as known or reasonably anticipated to be carcinogenic in the National Toxicology Program's Third Annual Report on Carcinogens provides support for the validity of the gavage route in such studies. Twenty-three chemicals among the 117 substances and processes listed were positive by gavage. Twenty of these 23 chemicals were also appropriately studied by at least one other route of exposure. Thus, we were able to evaluate the extent to which positive gavage results were confirmed by another route of exposure in this sample. Nineteen (or 95%) of the twenty chemicals were positive for carcinogenicity by at least one other nongavage route in carcinogenicity bioassays. Moreover, in each of these 19 cases, positive carcinogenesis results were obtained by a nongavage route in the same species of animal where gavage administration led to the induction of cancer. All of the 23 gavage-positive chemicals induced tumors distal to the site of administration in at least one study, as did all 15 chemicals which were also positive by subcutaneous injection. We emphasize, however, the limited scope of our survey. We have not evaluated all chemicals that have tested positive by gavage and by at least one alternative route, nor have we assessed those chemicals found to be negative by the gavage route.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)