Carcinogen Bioassay Design

  • J. F. Douglas
Part of the Contemporary Biomedicine book series (CB, volume 4)


Bioassay is the measurement or estimation of animal response to a chemical ingredient. “Bioassay,” often used instead of the term “carcinogenic bioassay,” is time-consuming, expensive, and insensitive. Yet, to date, it is still the only acceptable procedure for assessing carcinogenic potential. Almost all known human carcinogens have also been demonstrated to be animal carcinogens. Although carcinogen bioassay is still an evolving procedure and will improve as the state of the art matures, the long-term solution to this evaluation of carcinogenic potential is to find faster, simpler, and more reliable indices of carcinogenesis. Exploration of substitutes for bioassay has generated considerable effort, a discussion of which forms the basis for the first portion of this book.


Dose Level Maximum Tolerate Dose Bladder Neoplasm Carcinogenic Potential Spontaneous Tumor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Druckery, H., in Potential Carcinogenic Hazards from Drugs, Truhaut, R., ed., UICC Monograph Ser. 7, 60 (1967).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Modified form. Page, N. P., in Environmental Cancer, Kraybill, H. F., and Mehlman, M. A., eds., Wiley, New York, 1977, pp. 87–171.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Page, N. P., op. cit.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 3 (No. 3), 1980, Entire issue.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hartwell, J. L., Public Health Service 149, 1951.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mostofi, F. K., and Larsen, C. D., Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 21, 342 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shapiro, J. R., and Kirschbaum, A., Cancer Res. 11,644 (1951).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyl and, E., and Sydnor, K. L., Brit. J. Cancer 16, 731 (1962).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sydnor, K. L., Butenandt, O., Brillantes, F. P., and Huggins, C., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 29, 805 (1962).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Symeonidis, A., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 15, 539 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunning, W. F., Curtis, M. R., and Madsen, M. E., Cancer Res. 7, 134 (1947).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Della Porta, G., and Terracini, B., Prog Exp. Tumor Res. 11, 334 (1969).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sugal, M., Witting, L. A., Tsuchiyama, H., and Kummerow, F. A., Cancer Res. 22, 510 (1962).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tannenbaum, A., Cancer Res. 4, 673 (1944).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kawachi, T., Hirata, Y., and Sugimura, T., GANN 59, 523 (1968).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haseman, J., personal communication.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chu, K. C., Cueto, C., and Ward, J. M., J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 8, 251 (1981).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fears, T., and Douglas, J. F., J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1, 125 (1977).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fears, T., and Douglas, J. F., J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 1, 211 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Griesemer, R. A., and Cueto, C., in Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Carcinogen Screening Tests, Montesano, R., Bartsch, H., and Tomatis, L., eds, IARC Scientific Publications No. 27, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, 1980, pp. 259–281.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The HAMANA Press Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. F. Douglas

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations