Related Experiment Videos
Comparison of teratogenic and carcinogenic risks
1National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas 72079.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : RTP
|October 1, 1989
Summary
Risk assessment for teratogens and carcinogens shows that teratogenic risks are often underestimated compared to cancer risks. Applying similar risk standards reveals that teratogens can be equally or more potent than carcinogens.
Area of Science:
- Toxicology
- Risk Assessment
- Developmental Biology
Background:
- Risk assessment for teratogens receives less attention than for carcinogens, partly due to a lack of dose-response models.
- A perception exists that cancer risks significantly outweigh teratogenic risks for most chemicals.
- Conservative risk assessment procedures for carcinogens (e.g., 1 in 100,000) differ from those for teratogens, potentially leading to higher accepted teratogenic risks.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare teratogenic and carcinogenic risk estimates for chemicals when both effects occur in the same animal species.
- To evaluate the relative potency of teratogens versus carcinogens under similar risk assessment standards.
Main Methods:
- Employed similar procedures to derive teratogenic and carcinogenic risk estimates for nine distinct chemicals.
- Applied a consistent standard of risk to both teratogenic and carcinogenic effects for comparative analysis.
Main Results:
- When a similar risk standard was applied, the relative potency of teratogens compared to carcinogens varied significantly across the nine chemicals.
- Potency differences ranged from an order of magnitude lower to an order of magnitude higher for teratogens relative to carcinogens.
Conclusions:
- The study challenges the perception that cancer risks universally exceed teratogenic risks.
- Applying uniform risk assessment standards is crucial for accurate comparative evaluation of chemical hazards.
- Teratogenic risks may be comparable to or greater than carcinogenic risks for certain chemicals, necessitating a re-evaluation of risk assessment priorities.