ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2015
Improving prediction of carcinogenicity to reduce, refine, and replace the use of experimental animals.
Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carcinogenicity prediction via multi-task learning of cross-organ representations with attention mechanisms.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- The application of KI.C57-ras2.0 mouse in the carcinogenicity evaluation of medical devices-carcinogenicity evaluation of a novel hemodialyzer.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Developing a pragmatic consensus procedure supporting the ICH S1B(R1) weight of evidence carcinogenicity assessment.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- ICH S1 prospective evaluation study: weight of evidence approach to predict outcome and value of 2-year rat carcinogenicity studies. A report from the regulatory authorities subgroup.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Toxicogenomics Approaches to Address Toxicity and Carcinogenicity in the Liver.Toxicologic pathology · 2023Review
- Comet Assay Evaluation of Lanthanum Nitrate DNA Damage in C57-ras Transgenic Mice.Biological trace element research · 2021Article
- In silico identification of novel chemical compounds with antituberculosis activity for the inhibition of InhA and EthR proteins from Mycobacterium tuberculosis.Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases · 2021Article
- Multiple-endpoint in vitro carcinogenicity test in human cell line TK6 distinguishes carcinogens from non-carcinogens and highlights mechanisms of action.Archives of toxicology · 2021Article
- Quantification of cancer driver mutations in human breast and lung DNA using targeted, error-corrected CarcSeq.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2020Article
- A cross-sector call to improve carcinogenicity risk assessment through use of genomic methodologies.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2020Article
- Carcinogenicity of intermediate frequency magnetic field in Tg.rasH2 mice.Bioelectromagnetics · 2019Article
- Article
- A novel, integrated in vitro carcinogenicity test to identify genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens using human lymphoblastoid cells.Archives of toxicology · 2018Article
- Special issue: global 3Rs efforts - making progress and gaining momentum.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer risk assessment of new pharmaceuticals is crucial to protect public health. However, clinical trials lack the duration needed to clearly detect drug-related tumor emergence, and biomarkers suggestive of increased cancer risk from a drug typically are not measured in clinical trials. Therefore, the carcinogenic potential of a new pharmaceutical is extrapolated predominately based on 2-y bioassays in rats and mice. A key drawback to this practice is that the results are frequently positive for tumors and can be irrelevant to human cancer risk for reasons such as dose, mode of action, and species specificity. Alternative approaches typically strive to reduce, refine, and replace rodents in carcinogenicity assessments by leveraging findings in short-term studies, both in silico and in vivo, to predict the likely tumor outcome in rodents or, more broadly, to identify a cancer risk to patients. Given the complexities of carcinogenesis and the perceived impracticality of assessing risk in the course of clinical trials, studies conducted in animals will likely remain the standard by which potential cancer risks are characterized for new pharmaceuticals in the immediate foreseeable future. However, a weight-of-evidence evaluation based on short-term toxicologic, in silico, and pharmacologic data is a promising approach to identify with reasonable certainty those pharmaceuticals that present a likely cancer risk in humans and, conversely, those that do not present a human cancer risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25836962PMC4382620What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.