Advertisement

Two-year carcinogenicity study of 6-mercaptopurine in F344 rats

  • A. Maekawa
  • T. Nagaoka
  • H. Onodera
  • Y. Matsushima
  • A. Todate
  • M. Shibutani
  • H. Ogasawara
  • Y. Kodama
  • Y. Hayashi
Original Papers Experimental Oncology

Summary

The carcinogenicity of 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP), an anticancer drug, was examined in F344 rats of both sexes, administered the chemical at dietary levels of 0 (control), 25 ppm or 50 ppm for 2 years. Many tumors developed in all groups including the control group, the organ distribution and histological types being similar to those reported for spontaneous lesions. In males, there was no significant increase in the incidence of any tumor in the treated groups over that in the control group. In females, however, positive trends were noted in the occurrence of C-cell tumors, pheochromocytomas, uterine adenocarcinomas and gliomas, and the incidences of C-cell tumors and pheochromocytomas in the 50 ppm group were significantly higher than the values in the respective control group. In addition, the total numbers of malignant tumors increased significantly in the female 50 ppm group. However, most of the tumors demonstrating increase are frequently observed spontaneous lesions in this strain of rats, and their incidences in the present female control group were lower than in our historical data. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidences of preneoplastic changes and induction times for the above-listed tumors between the female control and the 50 ppm groups. These results thus indicated that while the carcinogenic potential of 6-MP can not be precluded, it can be only very weak or marginal, after continuous administration in the diet at the 50 ppm level for 2 years. The leukemogenic action of 6-MP was negative under the present experimental conditions.

Key words

6-Mercaptopurine F344 rat Carcinogenicity 

Abbreviation

6-MP

6-mercaptopurine

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Goodman DG, Ward JM, Squire RA, Chu KC, Linhart MS (1979) Neoplastic and nonneoplastic lesions in aging F344 rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 48:237–248Google Scholar
  2. Haseman JK, Huff J, Boorman GA (1984) Use of historical control data in carcinogenicity studies in rodents. Toxicol Pathol 12:126–135Google Scholar
  3. Heddle JA, Hite M, Kirkhart B, Mavournin K, MacGregor JT, Newell GW, Salamone MF (1983) The induction of micronuclei as a measure of genotoxicity. Mutat Res 123:61–118Google Scholar
  4. Heidelberger C, Freeman AE, Pienta RJ, Sivak A, Bertram JS, Casto BC, Dunkel VC, Francis MW, Kakunaga T, Little JB, Schechtman LM (1983) Cell transformation by chemical agents — a review and analysis of the literature. Mutat Res 114:283–385Google Scholar
  5. International Agency for Research on Cancer (1981) Some antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum 26:249–266Google Scholar
  6. Kier LD, Brusick DJ, Auletta AE, Von Halle ES, Brown MM, Simmon VF, Dunkel VC, McCann J, Mortelmans K, Prival M, Rao TK, Ray V (1986) TheSalmonella typhimurium/mammalian microsomal assay. A report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gene-Tox Program. Mutat Res 168:69–240Google Scholar
  7. Koestner A (1986) The brain-tumour issue in long-term toxicity studies in rats. Fd Chem Toxicol 24:139–143Google Scholar
  8. Maekawa A, Kurokawa Y, Takahashi M, Kokubo T, Ogiu T, Onodera H, Tanigawa H, Ohno Y, Furukawa F, Hayashi Y (1983) Spontaneous tumors in F344/DuCrj rats. Gann 74:365–372Google Scholar
  9. Moreland FM, Sheu CW, Springer JA, Green S (1981) Effects of prolonged chemical treatment with cyclophosphamide and 6-mercaptopurine in the dominant lethal test system. Mutat Res 90:193–199Google Scholar
  10. Peto R, Pike MC, Day NE, Gray RG, Lee PN, Parish S, Peto J, Richards S, Wahrendorf J (1980) Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. In: Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: a critical appraisal [IARC Monogr Suppl 2]. IARC, Lyon, pp 311–426Google Scholar
  11. Preston RJ, Au W, Bender MA, Brewen JG, Carrano AV, Heddle JA, McFee AF, Wolff S, Wassom JS (1981) Mammalian in vivo and in vitro cytogenetic assays. Mutat Res 87:143–188Google Scholar
  12. Solleveld HA, Haseman JK, McConnell EE (1984) Natural history of body weight gain, survival, and neoplasia in the F344 rat. J Natl Cancer Inst 72:929–940Google Scholar
  13. Swenberg JA (1986) Brain tumours — problems and perspectives. Fd Chem Toxicol 24:155–158Google Scholar
  14. Syekora I (1981) Dominant-lethal test of 6-mercaptopurine: dependence on dosage, duration and route of administration. Neoplasma 28:739–746Google Scholar
  15. WHO Scientific Group (1969) Report of the WHO scientific group on principles for the testing and evaluation of drugs for carcinogenicity. WHO Tech Rep Ser 426:1–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Maekawa
    • 1
  • T. Nagaoka
    • 1
  • H. Onodera
    • 1
  • Y. Matsushima
    • 1
  • A. Todate
    • 1
  • M. Shibutani
    • 1
  • H. Ogasawara
    • 1
  • Y. Kodama
    • 2
  • Y. Hayashi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of PathologyNational Institute of Hygienic SciencesTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Toxicology, Biological Safety Research CenterNational Institute of Hygienic SciencesTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations