ReviewToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2025
Why rat oral cavity tumors should not be the basis of quantitative cancer risk assessment for oral exposure to hexavalent chromium.
Review in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several regulatory agencies have developed threshold-based drinking water guidelines for hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)] protective of nonneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in rodents using small intestine tumor data in mice. However, in 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) set an oral cancer slope factor based on oral cavity tumors in rats following chronic exposure to up to 180 ppm Cr(VI) in drinking water. Herein, we review previously published in vivo mechanistic data in rat oral cavity tissue indicating the absence of mutation responses in oral cavity tissue of transgenic Big Blue® rats and the absence of transcriptomic responses in F344 rats indicative of toxicological or homeostatic changes in the oral cavity following exposures up to 180 ppm Cr(VI). In addition, we extended an IRIS meta-analysis of gastrointestinal cancers by including oral cavity cancers, using the same epidemiological studies and approach as IRIS. We observed a significantly decreased meta-relative risk (meta-relative risk: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.95 and 0.74, 95% CI: 0.068 to 0.81 using random and fixed effect models). Given the lack of evidence for genotoxicity or even homeostatic responses to Cr(VI) in the rat oral cavity and the absence of oral cancer risk in humans, oral toxicity criteria for Cr(VI) should not be based on oral cavity tumors in rats. Many agencies have instead developed threshold-based toxicity criteria using nonneoplastic intestinal lesions observed in mice due to strong evidence for a cytotoxicity/regenerative proliferation mode of action for intestinal tumors, which were observed at lower drinking water concentrations than rat oral tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.