Genetic vs. nongenetic chemical carcinogenesis and risk assessment

Comparison of multiple parameters of rodent carcinogenicity and in vitro genetic toxicity

The relationship between chemically induced patterns of tumorigenesis in rodents and of in vitro genetic toxicity was evaluated for 73 substances. tumorigenicity patterns were defined according to sex and species effects, the induction of common or uncommon tumors, and benign or malignant tumors. These results and the genetic toxicity results derived from the testing of chemicals under code were compared. Chemicals that induced tumors in both sexes of both rodent species (trans-sex/species carcinogens) were divided into those that showed multiple responses in genetic toxicity assays and those that showed little or no response. Some of the nongenotoxic trans-sex/species carcinogens exhibit properties that do not necessarily fit classification as only tumor promoters and may involve some other mode(s) of action. Those chemicals showing tumorigenicity in only one of the four groups exposed (uni-sex/species carcinogens) generally showed little or no response in genetic toxicity assays. Uni-sex/species carcinogens may be difficult to identify by in vitro assays because of their high tissue specificity. Chemicals that are tumorigenic in both sexes of both species are logically more likely to be tumorigenic in a third species than are those that are tumorigenic in only one sex of the exposed species. Therefore, while positive genetic toxicity test results are not predictive of all carcinogens, a consistent positive response among the multiple endpoints in these assays is more likely to identify chemicals with the potential for trans-sex/species carcinogenesis. Such trans-sex/species carcinogens may have the most direct implication for human health effects.

Implications of multiple mechanisms of carcinogenesis for short-term testing

The attempt has been made recently to categorize carcinogens into two mechanistic types based on their mechanism of action: genotoxic (capable of reacting with and damaging DNA) and epigenetic (unable to damage DNA to any detectable extent). By requiring that a given chemical fit into one or the other of these narrowly defined categories for regulatory purposes, we are probably oversimplifying potential biological effects. In fact, based on our limited understanding of carcinogenic mechanisms, this artificial distinction should probably be abandoned in favor of a more precise statement of each chemical's mechanism or relative potency of initiating and promoting effects. Since the standard short-term tests by which carcinogenicity of chemicals is screened were designed to detect certain chemical classes with active electrophilic intermediates, weak or specialized carcinogens may be missed and may be assumed erroneously to be nongenotoxic. The mechanisms of carcinogenicity for such carcinogens may include particulate deposition, active radical formation, liver toxicity, and hormonal interactions. Not all of these secondary mechanisms depend upon a detectable level of binding to DNA, damage to DNA, or modification of the DNA sequence, even though they may demonstrate other characteristics of a complete carcinogen (that is, irreversibility and lack of a threshold). Certain agents have been labeled as epigenetic. However, a consideration of the literature on sample agents (diethylstilbestrol, asbestos, and urethane) reveals that these are not epigenetic carcinogens despite their being labeled as such. Agents with irreversibility and no threshold have initiating potential and, as such, are genotoxic, whereas carcinogens that are classified as nongenotoxic are largely agents that promote the growth of liver tumors. Even promotion can be a mechanistically specialized phenomenon. For example, some promoters are cytotoxic to the liver, but not all liver toxins are liver tumor promoters or liver carcinogens. Further, the carcinogens commonly labeled as epigenetic might cause a unique specialized genotoxicity not detected by common screening tests routinely used for detecting genotoxicity. If we assume that this unrecognized but necessary initiating potential is mediated by some specialized genotoxicity, extra care must be taken to establish a genuine lack of genotoxicity before an agent can be classified (and regulated) as a promoter (lacking the ability to initiate tumor growth but still enhancing tumor development).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)