Richard N. Hill

A Framework for Human Relevance Analysis of Information on Carcinogenic Modes of Action

The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint–MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical–MOA–tissue–endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific communitys overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

Practical application of non-whole animal alternatives: summary of IRAG workshop on eye irritation testing

In November 1993, the Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group (IRAG) sponsored a workshop to examine the current scientific status of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test by assessing the current practical application of methods used to predict in vivo eye irritation. Laboratories from around the world were invited to submit detailed in vitro and in vivo data in parallel according to a specific set of guidelines in a consistent format. In vitro scores were compared with individual tissue scores. Over 60 data sets from 41 laboratories were received for 29 different test methods. Methods were grouped into five categories: organotypic models, chorioallantoic membrane-based assays, cell function-based assays, cytotoxicity assays and other systems. Data submissions and correlation analyses have been used to demonstrate the application of guidelines in method evaluations. Findings are summarized and future directions are indicated. A significant outcome of the workshop was the co-operation demonstrated among representatives of industry, academia and government in sharing test data on more than 2000 chemicals, products and product formulations for evaluation by their peers. Information obtained from this workshop will add to the weight of scientific evidence and scientific consensus about in vitro test methods and will establish credibility for regulatory acceptance of non-whole animal alternatives for ocular irritation.

Evaluation of eye irritation potential: statistical analysis and tier testing strategies☆

Eye irritation testing, specifically the Draize test, has been the centre of controversy for many reasons. Several alternatives, based on the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement, have been proposed and are being used by the industry and government authorities. However, no universally applicable, validated non-animal alternative(s) is currently available. This report presents a statistical analysis and two testing approaches: the partial least squares multivariate statistical analysis of de Silva and colleagues from France, the tier-testing approach for regulatory purposes described by Gerner and colleagues from Germany, and the three-step tier-testing approach of the US Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group described by Gupta and Hill. These approaches were presented as three separate papers at the November 1993 Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group (IRAG) Workshop on Eye Irritation Testing; they have been summarized and combined into the following three-part report. The first part (de Silva et al.) presents statistical techniques for establishing test batteries of in vitro alternatives to the eye irritation test. The second (Gerner et al.) and third (Gupta and Hill) parts are similar in that they stage assessment of information by using a combination of screening information and animal testing to effect reductions in animal use and distress.

FRAMEWORK FOR VALIDATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF IN VITRO TOXICITY TESTS

SummaryThe development and application of in vitro alternatives designed to reduce or replace the use of animals, or to lessen the distress and discomfort of laboratory animals, is a rapidly developing trend in toxicology. However, at present there is no formal administrative process to organize, coordinate, or evaluate validation activities. A framework capable of fostering the validation of new methods is essential for the effective transfer of new technologic developments from the research laboratory into practical use. This committee has identified four essential validation resources: chemical bank(s), cell and tissue banks, a data bank, and reference laboratories. The creation of a Scientific Advisory Board composed of experts in the various aspects and endpoints of toxicity testing, and representing the academic, industrial, and regulatory communities, is recommended. Test validation acceptance is contingent on broad buy-in by disparate groups in the scientific community—academics, industry, and government. This is best achieved by early and frequent communication among parties and agreement on common goals. It is hoped that the creation of a validation infrastructure composed of the elements described in this report will facilitate scientific acceptance and utilization of alternative methodologies and speed implementation of replacement, reduction, and refinement alternatives in toxicity testing.

Risk assessment for benefits analysis: framework for analysis of a thyroid-disrupting chemical.

Benefit-cost analysis is of growing importance in developing policies to reduce exposures to environmental contaminants. To quantify health benefits of reduced exposures, economists generally rely on dose-response relationships estimated by risk assessors. Further, to be useful for benefits analysis, the endpoints that are quantified must be expressed as changes in incidence of illnesses or symptoms that are readily understood by and perceptible to the layperson. For most noncancer health effects and for nonlinear carcinogens, risk assessments generally do not provide the dose-response functions necessary for economic benefits analysis. This article presents the framework for a case study that addresses these issues through a combination of toxicology, epidemiology, statistics, and economics. The case study assesses a chemical that disrupts proper functioning of the thyroid gland, and considers the benefits of reducing exposures in terms of both noncancer health effects (hypothyroidism) and thyroid cancers. The effects are presumed to be due to a mode of action involving interference with thyroid–pituitary functioning that would lead to nonlinear dose response. The framework integrates data from animal testing, statistical modeling, human data from the medical and epidemiological literature, and economic methodologies and valuation studies. This interdisciplinary collaboration differs from the more typical approach in which risk assessments and economic analyses are prepared independently of one another. This framework illustrates particular approaches that may be useful for expanded quantification of adverse health effects, and demonstrates the potential of such interdisciplinary approaches. Detailed implementation of the case study framework will be presented in future publications.

Report of the Validation and Technology Transfer committee of the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing Framework for validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests

The development and application of in vitro alternatives designed to reduce or replace the use of animals, or to lessen the distress and discomfort of laboratory animals, is a rapidly developing trend in toxicology. However, at present there is no formal administrative process to organize, coordinate, or evaluate validation activities. A framework capable of fostering the validation of new methods is essential for the effective transfer of new technological developments from the research laboratory into practical use. This committee has identified four essential validation resources: chemical bank(s), cell and tissue banks, a data bank, and reference laboratories. The creation of a Scientific Advisory Board composed of experts in the various aspects and endpoints of toxicity testing, and representing the academic, industrial and regulatory communities, is recommended. Test validation acceptance is contingent upon broad buy-in by disparate groups in the scientific community-academics, industry and government. This is best achieved by early and frequent communication among parties and agreement upon common goals. It is hoped that the creation of a validation infrastructure composed of the elements described in this report will facilitate scientific acceptance and utilization of alternative methodologies and speed implementation of replacement, reduction and refinement alternatives in toxicity testing.

Proliferative hepatocellular lesions of the rat: review and future use in risk assessment.

Background. When liver carcinogens are administered to rats, there is an increase in the frequency of certain morphological lesions and often a chronology in their formation. Generally foci of cellular alteration are first to appear, then neoplastic nodules, and finally carcinomas are noted in the livers of the rats. This time sequence suggests an interpretation of the carcinogenic process in which foci are a precursor stage in the development of neoplastic nodules, which in turn are precursors of carcinomas. However, under certain circumstances, if carcinogen administration ceases, many foci and neoplastic nodules disappear, and the formation of carcinomas occurs at a low frequency. Thus, an alternative interpretation is that foci and neoplastic nodules may be independent of carcinoma development. Because of these general findings, it is difficult to evaluate the significance of increases in lesions in long-term tests in rats. Since there is no certain scientific knowledge or consensus about the biological significance of liver nodules, the EPA needs a policy for the interpretation of rat carcinogen bioassays in which liver nodules are an end point.

Validation and regulatory acceptance of alternatives.

For years there was no focus within the U.S. federal government for alternatives to animal toxicity testing. Questions coming to regulatory agencies fell upon individuals to address in the best way they could. Given this void, the ad hoc Interagency Regulatory Alternatives Group was founded by staff in a number of federal agencies in the late 1980s to coalesce efforts in the field. The group sponsored two international workshops on eye irritation, the first making proposals for change in the current test method in rabbits, the second reviewing available data on in vitro alternatives. The result has been that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is considering revision of the in vivo eye irritation test guideline to incorporate a number of the workshop deliberations. However, movement of the in vitro eye irritation alternatives has been disappointing; attempts to determine their practical testing significance have thus far been unrewarding.

The role of ICCVAM in evaluating new and alternative test methods.

New toxicological test methods offer the potential benefits of improved safety assessments, cost and time savings, and the refinement, reduction, and replacement of animal use. The authors discuss ICCVAMs role in evaluating test methods and describe alternative methods that the Committee has evaluated and recommended.