Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38646442›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2024

Developing a pragmatic consensus procedure supporting the ICH S1B(R1) weight of evidence carcinogenicity assessment.

Arianna Bassan, Ronald Steigerwalt, Douglas Keller, Lisa Beilke, Paul M Bradley, Frank Bringezu, William J Brock, Leigh Ann Burns-Naas, Jon Chambers, Kevin Cross and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Arianna BassanInnovatune srl, Padova, Italy.
Ronald SteigerwaltTakeda Development Center Americas, San Diego, CA, United States.
Douglas KellerIndependent Consultant, Kennett Square, PA, United States.
Lisa BeilkeToxicology Solutions, Inc., Marana, AZ, United States.
Paul M BradleyInstem, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Frank BringezuChemical and Preclinical Safety, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
William J BrockBrock Scientific Consulting, LLC, Hilton Head, SC, United States.
Leigh Ann Burns-NaasMagnolia Toxicology Consulting, LLC, Traverse City, MI, United States.
Jon ChambersInstem, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kevin CrossInstem, Conshohocken, PA, United States.
Michael DoratoMBX Biosciences, Carmel, IN, United States.
Rosalie ElespuruIndependent Consultant, Annapolis, MD, United States.
Douglas FuhrerBioXcel Therapeutics, Inc., New Haven, CT, United States.
Frances HallInstem, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jim HartkeGilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, United States.
Gloria D JahnkeIndependent Consultant, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Felix M KluxenADAMA Deutschland GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
Eric McDuffieNeurocrine Bioscience, Inc., San Diego, CA, United States.
Friedemann SchmidtSanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jean-Pierre ValentinUCB Biopharma SRL, Braine l'Alleud, Belgium.
David WoolleyForthTox Ltd., Linlithgow, United Kingdom.
Doris ZaneGilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, United States.
Glenn J MyattInstem, Conshohocken, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ICH S1B carcinogenicity global testing guideline has been recently revised with a novel addendum that describes a comprehensive integrated Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach to determine the need for a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. In the present work, experts from different organizations have joined efforts to standardize as much as possible a procedural framework for the integration of evidence associated with the different ICH S1B(R1) WoE criteria. The framework uses a pragmatic consensus procedure for carcinogenicity hazard assessment to facilitate transparent, consistent, and documented decision-making and it discusses best-practices both for the organization of studies and presentation of data in a format suitable for regulatory review. First, it is acknowledged that the six WoE factors described in the addendum form an integrated network of evidence within a holistic assessment framework that is used synergistically to analyze and explain safety signals. Second, the proposed standardized procedure builds upon different considerations related to the primary sources of evidence, mechanistic analysis, alternative methodologies and novel investigative approaches, metabolites, and reliability of the data and other acquired information. Each of the six WoE factors is described highlighting how they can contribute evidence for the overall WoE assessment. A suggested reporting format to summarize the cross-integration of evidence from the different WoE factors is also presented. This work also notes that even if a 2-year rat study is ultimately required, creating a WoE assessment is valuable in understanding the specific factors and levels of human carcinogenic risk better than have been identified previously with the 2-year rat bioassay alone.

Indexed as

2-year rat bioassaycarcinogenicity assessmentdrug developmentICHS1Bintegrated assessmentpharmaceuticalsWoE

Identifiers

PMID38646442
PMCPMC11027748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.