This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hottendorf, G. H. Articles by Pachter, I. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hottendorf, G. H. Articles by Pachter, I. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Review and Evaluation of the NCI/NTP Carcinogenesis Bioassays

Bristol-Myers Company, Pharmaceutical Research and Development Division, Syracuse, NY 13221

Irwin J. Pachter

Bristol-Myers Company, Pharmaceutical Research and Development Division, Syracuse, NY 13221

A comparison of the carcinogenesis bioassay results obtained by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) indicates that approximately one-half of the bioassays directed by both institutions were positive for carcinogenicity. The more recent 85 bioassays completed by NTP reveal a higher proportion of studies interpreted as demonstrating no evidence of carcinogenicity than represented in the initial 198 bioassays conducted by NCI. Of the 100 NCI bioassays that were not positive for carcinogenicity 3 (3%) were classified in the category of "no evidence for carcinogenicity in two animal species." Of the 43 NTP bioassays that were not positive for carcinogenicity 36 (84%) were placed in the category of "no carcinogenic effects." The reason for this shift from a 33:1 positive to negative ratio in the NCI bioassays to an approximately 1:1 ratio in the NTP bioassays appears to be a difference in interpretation of the adequacy of the testing. For example, 6 of the 36 NTP negative bioassays involved testing in only one species. Uniform criteria for concluding that a bioassay is negative must be developed and the results of all existing and future carcinogenesis bioassays must be interpreted with these exclusive criteria. Other bioassay problems are explored, including the incomplete validation of the carcinogenesis bioassay protocol by confirmatory results with positive and negative reference agents, the apparent lack of bioavailability data for some orally administered negative compounds, the continued use of mouse hepatic neoplasia as a single discriminating parameter, the variability in the inter- and intrastudy incidence of spontaneous tumors, and the continued reliance on the maximum tolerated dose.

Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 13, No. 2, 141-146 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/019262338501300212


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. H. Hottendorf Carcinogenicity Testing of Antitumor Agents Toxicol Pathol, April 1, 1985; 13(3): 192 - 199. [Abstract] [PDF]