title: Issues in the design and interpretation of chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents: approaches to dose selection.
abstract: For more than three decades chronic studies in rodents have been the benchmark for assessing the potential long-term toxicity, and particularly the carcinogenicity, of chemicals. With doses typically administered for about 2 years (18 months to lifetime), the rodent bioassay has been an integral component of testing protocols for food additives, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and all manner of byproducts and environmental contaminants. Over time, the data from these studies have been used to address an increasing diversity of questions related to the assessment of human health risks, adding complexity to study design and interpretation. An earlier ILSI RSI working group developed a set of principles for the selection of doses for chronic rodent studies (ILSI, 1997). The present report builds on that work, examining some of the issues that arise and offering new perspectives and approaches for putting the principles into practice. Dose selection is considered both from the prospective viewpoint of the choosing of dose levels for a study and from the retrospective interpretation of study results in light of the doses used. A main theme of this report is that the purposes and objectives of chronic rodent studies vary and should be clearly defined in advance. Dose placement, then, should be optimized to achieve study objectives. For practical reasons, most chronic studies today must be designed to address multiple objectives, often requiring trade-offs and innovative approaches in study design. A systematic approach to dose selection should begin with recognition that the design of chronic studies occurs in the context of a careful assessment of the accumulated scientific information on the test substance, the relevant risk management questions, priorities and mandates, and the practical limitations and constraints on available resources. A stepwise process is described. The aim is to increase insofar as possible the utility of an expensive and time-consuming experiment. The kinds of data that are most commonly needed for dose selection and for understanding the dose-related results of chronic rodent studies, particularly carcinogenicity studies, are discussed as "design/interpretation factors." They comprise both the inherent characteristics of the test substance and indicators of biological damage, perturbation or stress among the experimental animals. They may be primary toxicity endpoints, predictors or indicators of appropriate dose selection, or indicators of conditions to be avoided in dose selection. The application and interpretation of design/interpretation factors is conditioned by the study objectives-what is considered desirable will depend on the strategy for choice of doses that is being followed. The challenge is to select doses that accommodate all of the issues raised by the relevant design/interpretation factors. Three case studies are presented here that illustrate the interplay between study objectives and the design and selection of doses for chronic rodent studies. These examples also highlight issues associated with multiple plausible modes of action, multiple pathways for biotransformation of the chemical, extraneous high-dose effects, the use of modeling in dose selection, and the implications of human exposure levels. Finally, looking to the future, the report explores seven potential paradigm shifts for risk assessment that will significantly impact the design and interpretation of toxicity and carcinogenicity studies.
authors.affiliation: Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
authors.forename: Lorenz R
authors.initials: LR
authors.lastname: Rhomberg
authors.forename: Karl
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Baetcke
authors.forename: Jerry
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Blancato
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bus
authors.forename: Samuel
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cohen
authors.forename: Rory
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Conolly
authors.forename: Rakesh
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Dixit
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Doe
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Ekelman
authors.forename: Penny
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Fenner-Crisp
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Harvey
authors.forename: Dale
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hattis
authors.forename: Abigail
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Jacobs
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Jacobson-Kram
authors.forename: Tom
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lewandowski
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Liteplo
authors.forename: Olavi
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Pelkonen
authors.forename: Jerry
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Rice
authors.forename: Diana
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Somers
authors.forename: Angelo
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Turturro
authors.forename: Webster
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: West
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Olin
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D015197:Carcinogenicity Tests / Q000379:methods*; D002273:Carcinogens / Q000633:toxicity; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D006801:Humans; D012107:Research Design; D012377:Rodentia
chemical_list: D002273:Carcinogens