Alternatives to the 2-species bioassay for the identification of potential human carcinogens

It is proposed that the standard 2-species rodent cancer bioassay protocol, as perfected by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has already fulfilled its most useful role by providing an unequalled carcinogenicity database by which to re-assess the type of carcinogen worthy of definition. Continued use of this resource and time consuming protocol can no longer be justified, except in rare circumstances of high and protracted human exposure to a chemical of unknown carcinogenicity. In those rare instances an enlarged bioassay of three or four test species should perhaps be considered, there being nothing fundamental about the rat/mouse combination. In the large majority of cases, however, a practical estimation of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical can be formed in the absence of lifetime carcinogenicity bioassay data. This can be achieved by its sequential study, starting with an appreciation of its chemical structure and anticipated reactivity and mammalian metabolism. After the shortterm evaluation of a range of additional properties of the agent, including its genetic toxicity, rodent toxicity and tissue-specific toxicity, confident predictions of the genotoxic and/or non-genotoxic carcinogenic potential of the agent can be made. In most situations these predictions will be suitable for framing hazard reduction measures among exposed humans. In some situations it may be necessary to evaluate these predicted activities using limited bioassays, a range of which are considered. Extensions of these limited carcinogenicity bioassays to a standard 2-year/2-species bioassay can only be supported in cases where the non-carcinogenicity of the agent becomes the important thing to define. The US NTP have evaluated the carcinogenicity of approximately 400 chemicals over the past 20 years, at a cost of hundreds of millions of US dollars. The experience gained by that and related initiatives, worldwide, can now be harnessed to classify thousands of priority chemicals as being either probable carcinogens or probable noncarcinogens. That can now be achieved using a fraction of the earlier resources and in a fraction of the time that would be required for the conduct of 2-species bioassays. The comfort factor for one group of people of the order of the present system, coupled to the comfort factor for another group of the delay in carcinogenicity assessment enforced by the present council of perfection, are the two main factors delaying transfer to a streamlined system for assessing the carcinogenic potential of chemicals to humans. A third delaying factor in the need for new and focused test data. Coordinated acquisition of such data could rapidly remove the first two obstacles.