MtBE and cancer in animals: statistical issues with poly-3 survival adjustments for lifetime studies

Consideration of the variability in control tumor incidence data at the Ramazzini Institute in evaluating treatment-related effects following chemical exposure

The Ramazzini Institute (RI) has been conducting animal carcinogenicity studies for decades, many of which have been considered by authoritative bodies to determine potential carcinogenicity in humans. Unlike other laboratories, such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the RI does not provide a report or record of historical control data. Transparently documenting historical control data is critical in the interpretation of individual study results within the same laboratory. Historical control data allow an assessment of significant trends, either increasing or decreasing, resulting from changes in laboratory methods or genetic drift. In this investigation: (1) we compiled a dataset of the tumors reported in control groups of Sprague-Dawley rats and Swiss mice based on data included in published RI studies on specific substances, and (2) conducted case studies to compare data from this RI control dataset to the findings from multiple RI studies on sweeteners and corresponding breakdown products. We found considerable variability in the tumor incidence across multiple tumor types when comparing across control groups from RI studies. When compared to the tumor incidence in treated groups from multiple studies, the incidence of some tumors considered to be treatment-related fell within the variability of background incidence from the RI control dataset.

Scientific considerations for evaluating cancer bioassays conducted by the Ramazzini Institute

BACKGROUND

The Ramazzini Institute (RI) has completed nearly 400 cancer bioassays on > 200 compounds. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and others have suggested that study design and protocol differences between the RI and other laboratories by may contribute to controversy regarding cancer hazard findings, principally findings on lymphoma/leukemia diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate RI study design, protocol differences, and accuracy of tumor diagnoses for their impact on carcinogenic hazard characterization.

METHODS

We analyzed the findings from a recent Pathology Working Group (PWG) review of RI procedures and tumor diagnoses, evaluated consistency of RI and other laboratory findings for chemicals identified by the RI as positive for lymphoma/leukemia, and examined evidence for a number of other issues raised regarding RI bioassays. The RI cancer bioassay design and protocols were evaluated in the context of relevant risk assessment guidance from international authorities.

DISCUSSION

Although the PWG identified close agreement with RI diagnoses for most tumor types, it did not find close agreement for lymphoma/leukemia of the respiratory tract or for neoplasms of the inner ear and cranium. Here we discuss a) the implications of the PWG findings, particularly lymphoma diagnostic issues; b) differences between RI studies and those from other laboratories that are relevant to evaluating RI cancer bioassays; and c) future work that may help resolve some concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that a) issues related to respiratory tract infections have complicated diagnoses at that site (i.e., lymphoma/leukemia), as well as for neoplasms of the inner ear and cranium, and b) there is consistency and value in RI studies for identification of other chemical-related neoplasia.