Consideration of both genotoxic and nongenotoxic mechanisms in predicting carcinogenic potential

Examination of potential mechanisms of carcinogenicity of 1,4-dioxane in rat nasal epithelial cells and hepatocytes

Several long-term studies with 1,4-dioxane (dioxane) have shown it to induce liver tumors in mice, and nasal and liver tumors in rats when administered in amounts from 0.5 to 1.8% in the drinking water (Argus et al. 1965; Kociba et al. 1974; National Cancer Institute, 1978). In order to examine potential mechanisms of action, chemically-induced DNA repair (as an indicator of DNA reactivity) and cell proliferation (as an indicator of promotional activity) were examined in nasal turbinate epithelial cells and hepatocytes of male Fischer-344 rats treated with dioxane. Neither dioxane nor 1,4-dioxane-2-one, one of the proposed metabolites, exhibited activity in the in vitro primary rat hepatocyte DNA repair assay, even from cells that had been isolated from animals given either 1 or 2% dioxane in the drinking water for 1 week to induce enzymes that might be responsible for producing genotoxic metabolites. No activity was seen in the in vivo hepatocyte DNA repair assay in animals given a single dose of up to 1000 mg/kg dioxane or up to 2% dioxane in the drinking water for 1 week. Treatment of rats with 1.0% dioxane in the drinking water for 5 days yielded no increase in liver/body weight nor induction of palmitoyl CoA oxidase, indicating that dioxane does not fit into the class of peroxisomal proliferating carcinogens. The percentage of cells in DNA synthesis phase (S-phase) was determined by administration of 3H-thymidine and subsequent quantitative histoautoradiography. The hepatic labeling index (LI) did not increase at either 24 or 48 h following a single dose of 1000 mg/kg dioxane.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

An appreciation of the maximum tolerated dose: an inadequately precise decision point in designing a carcinogenesis bioassay?

Cancers arise in specific tissues. One difficulty with the present definitions of the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD), as they pertain to the rodent cancer bioassay, is that they base MTD on relatively crude parameters associated with the well-being of the entire animal rather than with the lack of specific tissue toxicity. Additional factors that could be included in the MTD definition, or could be separately determined, are addressed. Many of these factors refer to toxic behavior in one or a few tissues and, if used in setting the MTD, may mask more relevant events occurring at higher dose levels in other tissues. Reducing the MTD to a level that fails to take into account pesticide or drug-related toxicity may lead to the loss of relevant information in the bioassay. It is concluded, therefore, that there are two possible approaches to a more appropriate use of the MTD. The highest dose of the test agent (MTD) may be chosen (i) to lie below the thresholds of carcinogenicity-related non-genotoxic toxicity or (ii) the present high level MTD may continue to be used and tumors that arise may be classified as being irrelvant to humans at some or all exposure levels. The latter approach is to be preferred. It has the potential to avoid missing high level effects of the test agent that may be relevant to the human population.

Evidence that toxic injury is not always associated with induction of chemical carcinogenesis

Long-term rodent bioassays with chemicals administered at maximum tolerated doses identify noncarcinogens as well as carcinogens. Thirty-one chemicals recently evaluated for carcinogenic potential by the National Toxicology Program provide unique data on the relationships between mutagenicity, toxicity, and carcinogenicity. Twenty-two substances were classified as carcinogens, and nine showed no evidence of carcinogenicity. Although cellular proliferation does play an intrinsic role in neoplastic processes, the responses associated with chronic toxicity in these studies were not always sufficient to induce neoplasia. Regardless of their mutagenic potential, 19 carcinogens induced toxic effects at sites that did not show neoplastic changes; similar toxic lesions were also seen among the mutagenic and nonmutagenic noncarcinogens. Although many nonmutagens induced neoplasia at sites that showed toxic effects, some of the same chemicals also exhibited toxicity at other sites that showed no neoplastic effect. These results suggest that for some chemicals, properties other than mutagenicity or toxicity may be responsible for their carcinogenic potential.