Current Status and Emerging Opportunities in Replacement of the Lifetime Mouse Cancer Bioassay

Abstract

The approach to evaluating the carcinogenic potential of pharmaceuticals is a matter of debate and has undergone important changes related to increasing knowledge of the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, accumulated data from carcinogenicity studies, and tech-nological progress. The discussions held during the International Conference of Harmoni-zation (ICH) led to the proposal of a basic principle for carcinogenicity testing: one rodent lifespan study plus an additional short-term study carrying mechanistic insight to the carcinogenicity endpoints. Alternatively, a second lifespan study is acceptable. This approach is in line with the development of alternative models, primarily genetically-modified mice that are conceived on the basis of known mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Such models have been evaluated through studies sponsored by the International Life Sciences Institute. These studies are in their final stage. Important data have already been presented.

This paper includes a critical analysis of the results available from the models and thinking in Europe about their contribution to risk assessment. It provides “a” European view, rather than “the” European view, of the problem, since the latter is dependent upon ongoing analysis of the available data being performed by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products’ Safety Working Party.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Office of Science and Technology Policy. Chemical carcinogens: a review of the science and its associated principles. Federal Register. 1985;50:10372–10442.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Weisburger JH, Williams, GM. Carcinogen testing: current problems and new approaches. Science. 1981;214:401–407.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Commitee for Proprietary Medicinal Products/Safety Working Party (CPMP/SWP/1983). The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; 1998;3B: 63.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Commitee for Proprietary Medicinal Products/International Conference on Harmonization. (CPMP/ICH/140/95). The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Com-mitee for Proprietary Medicinal Products/International Conference on Harmonization; 1998;3B:73.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Purchase IFH. Current knowledge of mechanisms of carcinogenicity: genotoxins versus non-genotoxins. Human Experimental Toxicology. 1994;13:17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Van Oosterhout JPJ, van der Laan JW, De Waal EJ, Olejniczak K, Hilgenfeld M, Schmidt V, Bass R. The utility of two rodent species in carcinogenicity risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in Europe. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol. 1997;25:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bartsch H, Malaveille C. Prevalence of genotoxic chemicals among animal and human carcinogenic agents evaluated in the IARC monograph series. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1989;5:115.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Müller L, Kasper P. Human biological relevance and the use of threshold-arguments in regulatory genotoxicity assessment: experience with pharmaceuticals. Mutation Research. 2000;464:9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Prives C, Hall PA. The p53 pathway. J Pathology. 1999;187:112.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Levine AJ. The tumour suppressor genes. Annu Rev Biochem. 1993;62:623.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    French J, Haseman J. The p53-/- heterozygous knockout mouse model for short-term carcinogenicity testing. Presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing, Washington, DC; November 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Swift M, Chase C. Cancer in families with xeroderma pigmentosum. J Nat Can Inst. 1979;62:1415.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Setlow RB. Repair deficient human disorders and cancer. Nature. 1978:271:713.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bootsma D, Hoeijmakers JHJ. Engagement with transcription. Nature. 1993;363:114.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Habraken Y, Sung P, Prakash L, Prakash S. Yeast Excision repair gene RAD2 encodes a single-stranded DNA endonuclease. Nature. 1993;366:365.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Steeg Hvan S, Beems RB, Benthem J van, van Kreijl C. The XPA-/- and the XPA-/-/p53-/- knockout mouse models for short-term carcinogenicity testing. Presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing, Washing-ton, DC; November 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hoffmann JS, Fry M, Kandace, JJ, Williams J, Loeb LA. Codons 12 and 13 of H-ras protooncogene interrupt the progression of DNA synthesis catalysed by DNA polymerase α. Cancer Res. 1993;53:2895.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Krontiris TG, Devlin B, Karp DD, Robert NJ, Risch N. An association between the risk of cancer and mutations in the HRAS1 minisatellite locus. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:517.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Tong L, de Vos AM, Milbum MV, Jancarik J, Noguchi S, Nishimura S, Miura K, Ohtsuka E, Kim S-H. Structural differences between a ras oncogene protein and the normal protein. Nature. 1989:337:90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Krengel U, Schlichting L, Scherer A, Schumann R, Frech M, John J, Sabsch W, Pai EF, Wittinghofer A. Three-dimensional structures of H-ras p21 mutants: Molecular basis for their inability to function as signal switch molecules. Cell. 1990;62:539.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ando K, Saitoh A, Hino O, Takahashi R, Kimura M, Katsuki M. Chemically induced forestomach papillomas in transgenic mice carry mutant human c-Ha-ras transgenes. Cancer Res. 1992;52:978.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Saitoh A, Kimura M, Takahashi R, Yokoyama M, Nomura T, Izawa M, Sekiya T, Nishimura S, Katsuki M. Most turmors in transgenic mice with human c-Ha-ras gene contained somatically activated transgenes. Oncogene. 1990;Aug5(8):1195.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Brown K, Buchmann A, Balmain A. Carcinogen-induced mutations in the mouse c-Ha-ras gene provide evidence of multiple pathways for tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990;87:538.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Leder A, Kuo A, Cardiff RD, Sinn E, Ledder P. v-Ha-ras transgene abrogates the initiation step in mouse skin tumorigenesis: effects of phorbol esters and retinoic acid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1990; 87:9178.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    The Tg.AC Transgenic Model Assay Working Group. Characteristics of the Tg.AC Transgenic Mouse Model. Presented at the Workshop on the Evaluation of Alternative Models for Carcinogenicity Testing, Washington, DC; November 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Tennant RW, French JE, Spalding JW. Identifying chemical carcinogens and assessing potential risk in short-term bioassays using transgenic mouse models. Environ Health Perspect. 1995;103:942.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Silva-Lima.

Additional information

The views presented in this paper are those of the authors and should not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency or its scientific committees.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silva-Lima, B., van der Laan, J.W. Current Status and Emerging Opportunities in Replacement of the Lifetime Mouse Cancer Bioassay. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 645–657 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150203600319

Download citation

Key Words

  • Carcinogenicity testing
  • Transgenic mice
  • Knockout mice