An Analysis of the Carcinogenesis Testing Experience of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Tabulations of the results of the initial approximately 200 NCI carcinogenesis bioassays conducted in mice and rats were published recently. However, no analysis of the results were provided. Such an analysis is the subject of this report.

Ninety eight NCI bioassays were positive for carcinogenicity. Only three bioassays (<2%) were negative in both species and the ratio of positive to negative bioassays was 33:1. The remaining 47% of the bioassays were considered to be suggestive or inconclusive and it is inappropriate to refer to the total positive rate as 50%. The liver was the predominant tumor site and the only tumors produced in either rodent species in 19% of the positive bioassays were in the livers of mice. The high ratio of positive to negative results and the use of the mouse liver as a discriminating target organ raise serious concerns about the carcinogenesis protocol and in the methods of evaluating the results. Several recommendations are offered which may be useful in the current reexamination of bioassay procedures.

References

1. Griesemer RA , Cueto C : Toward a classification scheme for degrees of experimental evidence for the carcinogenicity of chemicals for animals. In Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Carcinogen Screening Tests. R Montesano , H Bartsch and L Tomatis , (editors) Int Agency Res Cancer, Lyon, 1980, pp. 259–281. (IARC Sci Publ 27)

2. Chu KC , Cueto C , Ward JM : Factors in the evaluation of 200 National Cancer Institute carcinogen bioassays. J Toxicol Environ Health 8:251–280, 1981.

3. Sontag JM, Page NP, Saffiotti U: Guidelines for Carcinogen Bioassay in Small Rodents. NCI Technical Report No. 1, DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 76-801, 1976.

4. 1-nitronaphthalene, titanium dioxide and dl-menthol.

5. Grasso P , Crampton RF : The value of the mouse in carcinogenicity testing. Food Cosmet Toxicol 10:418–426, 1972.

6. Butler WH , Newberne PM (editors). Mouse'Hepatic Neoplasia. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975, pp. 1–5.

7. Tomatis L , Partensky C , Montesano R : The predictive value of mouse liver tumour induction in carcinogenicity testing-a literature survey. Int J Cancer 12:1–20, 1973.

8. Heston WE , Vlahakis G : Factors in the causation of spontaneous hepatomas in mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 37:839–843, 1966.

9. Gori GB : The regulation of carcinogenic hazards. Science 208:256–261, 1980.

10.

10. Tarone RE , Chu KC , Ward JM : Variability in the rates of some common naturally occurring tumors in Fischer 344 rats and (C57BL/6N X C3H/HeN)F1 (B6C3F1) mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 66:1175–1181, 1981.

11.

11. Riley V : Psychoneuroendocrine influences on immunocompetence and neoplasia. Science 212: 1100–1109, 1981.

12.

12. Salsburg DS : Use of statistics when examining lifetime studies in rodents to detect carcinogenicity. J Toxicol Environ Health 3:611–628, 1977.

13.

13. AMA Council on Scientific Affairs : Carcinogen regulation. JAMA 246:253–256, 1981.

14.

14. Ballin JC : Carcinogenicity testing of drugs. JAMA 242:26–27, 1979.

15.

15. von Wittenau , M Schach : Cancer risk assessment. Science 206:1258–1260, 1979.

16.

16. Wolf FJ : Effects of overloading pathways on toxicity. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 3(5/6):113–134, 1980.

17.

17. Zbinden G : Progress in Toxicology Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1973, pp. 46–48.

18.

18. Swarm RL , Roberts GKS , Levy AC , Hines LR : Observations on the thyroid gland in rats following the administration of sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 24:351–363, 1973.