Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Felter, Susan P.
• Boobis, Alan R.
• Botham, Philip A.
• Brousse, Alice
• Greim, Helmut
• Hollnagel, Heli M.
• Sauer, Ursula G.

Titel

Hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment of carcinogens: too much or too little? - Report of an ECETOC workshop

Ist Teil von

• Critical reviews in toxicology, 2020-01, Vol.50 (1), p.72-95

Ort / Verlag

England: Taylor & Francis

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Link zum Volltext

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) organized a workshop "Hazard Identification, Classification and Risk Assessment of Carcinogens: Too Much or Too Little?" to explore the scientific limitations of the current binary carcinogenicity classification scheme that classifies substances as either carcinogenic or not. Classification is often based upon the rodent 2-year bioassay, which has scientific limitations and is not necessary to predict whether substances are likely human carcinogens. By contrast, tiered testing strategies founded on new approach methodologies (NAMs) followed by subchronic toxicity testing, as necessary, are useful to determine if a substance is likely carcinogenic, by which mode-of-action effects would occur and, for non-genotoxic carcinogens, the dose levels below which the key events leading to carcinogenicity are not affected. Importantly, the objective is not for NAMs to mimic high-dose effects recorded in vivo, as these are not relevant to human risk assessment. Carcinogenicity testing at the "maximum tolerated dose" does not reflect human exposure conditions, but causes major disturbances of homeostasis, which are very unlikely to occur at relevant human exposure levels. The evaluation of findings should consider biological relevance and not just statistical significance. Using this approach, safe exposures to non-genotoxic substances can be established.