3Rs
Carcinogenicity studies
Knight A, Bailey J, Balcombe
J. Animal carcinogenicity
studies: 3 alternatives
to the bioassay. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2006; 34(1):
39-48.
Download (113
kb).
Scientific poster
(138 kb).
ABSTRACT
Conventional animal carcinogenicity tests take around three years to design,
conduct and interpret. Consequently, only a tiny fraction of the thousands
of industrial chemicals currently in use have been tested for
carcinogenicity. Despite the costs of hundreds of millions of dollars and
millions of skilled personnel hours, as well as millions of animal lives,
several investigations have revealed that animal carcinogenicity data lack
human specificity (i.e. the ability to identify human non-carcinogens),
which severely limits the human predictivity of the bioassay. This is due to
the scientific inadequacies of many carcinogenicity bioassays, and numerous
serious biological obstacles, which render profoundly difficult any attempts
to accurately extrapolate animal data in order to predict carcinogenic
hazards to humans. Proposed modifications to the conventional bioassays have
included the elimination of mice as a second species, and the use of
genetically-altered or neonatal mice, decreased study durations,
initiation–promotion models, the greater incorporation of toxicokinetic and
toxicodynamic assessments, structure-activity relationship (computerised)
systems, in vitro assays, cDNA microarrays for detecting changes in gene
expression, limited human clinical trials, and epidemiological research. The
potential advantages of nonanimal assays when compared to bioassays include
the superior human specificity of the results, substantially reduced
time-frames, and greatly reduced demands on financial, personnel and animal
resources. Inexplicably, however, the regulatory agencies have been
frustratingly slow to adopt alternative protocols. In order to decrease the
enormous cost of cancer to society, a substantial redirection of resources
away from excessively slow and resource-intensive rodent bioassays, into the
further development and implementation of non-animal assays, is both
strongly justified and urgently required.