Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective
Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: inse...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Toxicology letters 2004-06, Vol.151 (1), p.29-41 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 41 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 29 |
container_title | Toxicology letters |
container_volume | 151 |
creator | Bolt, Hermann M Foth, Heidi Hengstler, Jan G Degen, Gisela H |
description | Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: insertion of an uncertainty (safety) factor permits the derivation of permissible exposure levels at which no relevant human cancer risks are anticipated. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to a whole array of possibilities. Positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. Non-DNA-reactive genotoxins, such as topoisomerase inhibitors or inhibitors of the spindle apparatus are considered in this respect. In such cases, arguments are in favour of the existence of “practical” thresholds. Taking existing concepts together, it is proposed to basically distinguish between “perfect” and “practical” thresholds. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxins such as aneugens (aneuploidy, chromosome loss, non-disjunction) thresholds should be defined. It is being discussed as to whether the identification of possible threshold effects should also include other mechanisms of genotoxicity, in addition to aneugenic effects. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. Oxidative stress as an important mechanism is triggered by exposure to exogenous factors such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation, anoxia and hyperoxia, and by chemicals producing reactive oxygen species. The idea is receiving increased support that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated processes of carcinogenesis have practical thresholds. Since reactive oxygen species are genotoxic in principle, questions arise whether chemicals that increase ROS production will superimpose to an endogenously produced background level of DNA lesions, related to mechanisms that may result in non-linear dose-effect relationships. The existence of “endogenous” DNA adducts has been generally accepted, and possible regulatory implications of the presence of endogenous carcinogens have been discussed. It is now becoming evident that a diversity of methods of carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses must be considered, dependent on |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.004 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17975802</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0378427404002103</els_id><sourcerecordid>17975802</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6ad335afa49addf7d22d79a67f0a4e412c24a72d45241bbeae3a4138eb075063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFq3DAURUVpSKZJ_qAEbZqdJ5IsW_amUIakCQSymb14lp6nGmYkR9KkSVf5iHxhv6R2Z6BZFS68zbmXxyHkM2dzznh9tZ7n8LzBPBeMyfkUJj-QGW9UW5S8bj-SGStVU0ih5An5lNKaMVbLujomJ7ziStVlMyN2AdE4H1bonXH5hRrIuArR_YLsgqehp-YHbp2BTfr9-ubxJ4U0oMmJ5kA7pCb45CxGtNR5CvR6F8OA4OmA8S_onvCMHPVjH88P95Qsb66Xi9vi_uH73eLbfWEkb3NRgy3LCnqQLVjbKyuEVS3UqmcgUXJhhAQlrKyE5F2HgCVIXjbYMVWxujwll_vZIYbHHaasty4Z3GzAY9glzVWrqoaJEZR70MSQUsReD9FtIb5ozvQkV6_1Xq6e5OopTI61i8P-rtui_Vc62ByBLwcA0iisj-CNS--4phrR6dGvew5HGU8Oo07GoTdoXRyNaRvc_z_5A-A6nRs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17975802</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Bolt, Hermann M ; Foth, Heidi ; Hengstler, Jan G ; Degen, Gisela H</creator><creatorcontrib>Bolt, Hermann M ; Foth, Heidi ; Hengstler, Jan G ; Degen, Gisela H</creatorcontrib><description>Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: insertion of an uncertainty (safety) factor permits the derivation of permissible exposure levels at which no relevant human cancer risks are anticipated. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to a whole array of possibilities. Positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. Non-DNA-reactive genotoxins, such as topoisomerase inhibitors or inhibitors of the spindle apparatus are considered in this respect. In such cases, arguments are in favour of the existence of “practical” thresholds. Taking existing concepts together, it is proposed to basically distinguish between “perfect” and “practical” thresholds. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxins such as aneugens (aneuploidy, chromosome loss, non-disjunction) thresholds should be defined. It is being discussed as to whether the identification of possible threshold effects should also include other mechanisms of genotoxicity, in addition to aneugenic effects. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. Oxidative stress as an important mechanism is triggered by exposure to exogenous factors such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation, anoxia and hyperoxia, and by chemicals producing reactive oxygen species. The idea is receiving increased support that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated processes of carcinogenesis have practical thresholds. Since reactive oxygen species are genotoxic in principle, questions arise whether chemicals that increase ROS production will superimpose to an endogenously produced background level of DNA lesions, related to mechanisms that may result in non-linear dose-effect relationships. The existence of “endogenous” DNA adducts has been generally accepted, and possible regulatory implications of the presence of endogenous carcinogens have been discussed. It is now becoming evident that a diversity of methods of carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses must be considered, dependent on the mode of action. Although there is an increasing international awareness of these developments, the system of classification of carcinogens of the European Union still remains static. This should be changed, as the philosophy of separation of a strictly sequential “hazard assessment” and “risk assessment” appears out-of-date.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0378-4274</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3169</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15177638</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TOLED5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Shannon: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Carcinogenesis ; Carcinogenesis, carcinogens and anticarcinogens ; Carcinogenicity Tests - methods ; Carcinogens - classification ; Carcinogens - standards ; Chemical agents ; Chromosomal genotoxins ; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ; Dose–response ; Endogenous carcinogens ; European Union ; Genotoxicity ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Mutagenicity Tests - methods ; Mutagens - classification ; Mutagens - standards ; Reactive oxygen ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk Assessment - standards ; Threshold concepts ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Toxicology letters, 2004-06, Vol.151 (1), p.29-41</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6ad335afa49addf7d22d79a67f0a4e412c24a72d45241bbeae3a4138eb075063</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6ad335afa49addf7d22d79a67f0a4e412c24a72d45241bbeae3a4138eb075063</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=15855176$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15177638$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bolt, Hermann M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foth, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hengstler, Jan G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degen, Gisela H</creatorcontrib><title>Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective</title><title>Toxicology letters</title><addtitle>Toxicol Lett</addtitle><description>Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: insertion of an uncertainty (safety) factor permits the derivation of permissible exposure levels at which no relevant human cancer risks are anticipated. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to a whole array of possibilities. Positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. Non-DNA-reactive genotoxins, such as topoisomerase inhibitors or inhibitors of the spindle apparatus are considered in this respect. In such cases, arguments are in favour of the existence of “practical” thresholds. Taking existing concepts together, it is proposed to basically distinguish between “perfect” and “practical” thresholds. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxins such as aneugens (aneuploidy, chromosome loss, non-disjunction) thresholds should be defined. It is being discussed as to whether the identification of possible threshold effects should also include other mechanisms of genotoxicity, in addition to aneugenic effects. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. Oxidative stress as an important mechanism is triggered by exposure to exogenous factors such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation, anoxia and hyperoxia, and by chemicals producing reactive oxygen species. The idea is receiving increased support that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated processes of carcinogenesis have practical thresholds. Since reactive oxygen species are genotoxic in principle, questions arise whether chemicals that increase ROS production will superimpose to an endogenously produced background level of DNA lesions, related to mechanisms that may result in non-linear dose-effect relationships. The existence of “endogenous” DNA adducts has been generally accepted, and possible regulatory implications of the presence of endogenous carcinogens have been discussed. It is now becoming evident that a diversity of methods of carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses must be considered, dependent on the mode of action. Although there is an increasing international awareness of these developments, the system of classification of carcinogens of the European Union still remains static. This should be changed, as the philosophy of separation of a strictly sequential “hazard assessment” and “risk assessment” appears out-of-date.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Carcinogenesis</subject><subject>Carcinogenesis, carcinogens and anticarcinogens</subject><subject>Carcinogenicity Tests - methods</subject><subject>Carcinogens - classification</subject><subject>Carcinogens - standards</subject><subject>Chemical agents</subject><subject>Chromosomal genotoxins</subject><subject>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</subject><subject>Dose–response</subject><subject>Endogenous carcinogens</subject><subject>European Union</subject><subject>Genotoxicity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mutagenicity Tests - methods</subject><subject>Mutagens - classification</subject><subject>Mutagens - standards</subject><subject>Reactive oxygen</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - standards</subject><subject>Threshold concepts</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0378-4274</issn><issn>1879-3169</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFq3DAURUVpSKZJ_qAEbZqdJ5IsW_amUIakCQSymb14lp6nGmYkR9KkSVf5iHxhv6R2Z6BZFS68zbmXxyHkM2dzznh9tZ7n8LzBPBeMyfkUJj-QGW9UW5S8bj-SGStVU0ih5An5lNKaMVbLujomJ7ziStVlMyN2AdE4H1bonXH5hRrIuArR_YLsgqehp-YHbp2BTfr9-ubxJ4U0oMmJ5kA7pCb45CxGtNR5CvR6F8OA4OmA8S_onvCMHPVjH88P95Qsb66Xi9vi_uH73eLbfWEkb3NRgy3LCnqQLVjbKyuEVS3UqmcgUXJhhAQlrKyE5F2HgCVIXjbYMVWxujwll_vZIYbHHaasty4Z3GzAY9glzVWrqoaJEZR70MSQUsReD9FtIb5ozvQkV6_1Xq6e5OopTI61i8P-rtui_Vc62ByBLwcA0iisj-CNS--4phrR6dGvew5HGU8Oo07GoTdoXRyNaRvc_z_5A-A6nRs</recordid><startdate>20040615</startdate><enddate>20040615</enddate><creator>Bolt, Hermann M</creator><creator>Foth, Heidi</creator><creator>Hengstler, Jan G</creator><creator>Degen, Gisela H</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040615</creationdate><title>Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective</title><author>Bolt, Hermann M ; Foth, Heidi ; Hengstler, Jan G ; Degen, Gisela H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6ad335afa49addf7d22d79a67f0a4e412c24a72d45241bbeae3a4138eb075063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Carcinogenesis</topic><topic>Carcinogenesis, carcinogens and anticarcinogens</topic><topic>Carcinogenicity Tests - methods</topic><topic>Carcinogens - classification</topic><topic>Carcinogens - standards</topic><topic>Chemical agents</topic><topic>Chromosomal genotoxins</topic><topic>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</topic><topic>Dose–response</topic><topic>Endogenous carcinogens</topic><topic>European Union</topic><topic>Genotoxicity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mutagenicity Tests - methods</topic><topic>Mutagens - classification</topic><topic>Mutagens - standards</topic><topic>Reactive oxygen</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - standards</topic><topic>Threshold concepts</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bolt, Hermann M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Foth, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hengstler, Jan G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Degen, Gisela H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Toxicology letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bolt, Hermann M</au><au>Foth, Heidi</au><au>Hengstler, Jan G</au><au>Degen, Gisela H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective</atitle><jtitle>Toxicology letters</jtitle><addtitle>Toxicol Lett</addtitle><date>2004-06-15</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>151</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>41</epage><pages>29-41</pages><issn>0378-4274</issn><eissn>1879-3169</eissn><coden>TOLED5</coden><abstract>Existing systems of classification of carcinogens are a matter of discussion, world-wide. There is agreement that it should be distinguished between genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals. The risk assessment approach used for non-genotoxic chemicals is similar among different regulatory bodies: insertion of an uncertainty (safety) factor permits the derivation of permissible exposure levels at which no relevant human cancer risks are anticipated. For genotoxic carcinogens, case studies of chemicals point to a whole array of possibilities. Positive data of chromosomal effects only, in the absence of mutagenicity, may support the characterization of a compound that produces carcinogenic effects only at high, toxic doses. Non-DNA-reactive genotoxins, such as topoisomerase inhibitors or inhibitors of the spindle apparatus are considered in this respect. In such cases, arguments are in favour of the existence of “practical” thresholds. Taking existing concepts together, it is proposed to basically distinguish between “perfect” and “practical” thresholds. There is a wide consensus that for non-DNA-reactive genotoxins such as aneugens (aneuploidy, chromosome loss, non-disjunction) thresholds should be defined. It is being discussed as to whether the identification of possible threshold effects should also include other mechanisms of genotoxicity, in addition to aneugenic effects. Specific mechanisms of clastogenicity have been repeatedly addressed as also having thresholds, such as topoisomerase II poisons or mechanisms based on reactive oxygen. Oxidative stress as an important mechanism is triggered by exposure to exogenous factors such as ultraviolet (UV) and ionizing radiation, anoxia and hyperoxia, and by chemicals producing reactive oxygen species. The idea is receiving increased support that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated processes of carcinogenesis have practical thresholds. Since reactive oxygen species are genotoxic in principle, questions arise whether chemicals that increase ROS production will superimpose to an endogenously produced background level of DNA lesions, related to mechanisms that may result in non-linear dose-effect relationships. The existence of “endogenous” DNA adducts has been generally accepted, and possible regulatory implications of the presence of endogenous carcinogens have been discussed. It is now becoming evident that a diversity of methods of carcinogenic risk extrapolation to low doses must be considered, dependent on the mode of action. Although there is an increasing international awareness of these developments, the system of classification of carcinogens of the European Union still remains static. This should be changed, as the philosophy of separation of a strictly sequential “hazard assessment” and “risk assessment” appears out-of-date.</abstract><cop>Shannon</cop><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>15177638</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.004</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0378-4274 |
ispartof | Toxicology letters, 2004-06, Vol.151 (1), p.29-41 |
issn | 0378-4274 1879-3169 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17975802 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Biological and medical sciences Carcinogenesis Carcinogenesis, carcinogens and anticarcinogens Carcinogenicity Tests - methods Carcinogens - classification Carcinogens - standards Chemical agents Chromosomal genotoxins Dose-Response Relationship, Drug Dose–response Endogenous carcinogens European Union Genotoxicity Humans Medical sciences Mutagenicity Tests - methods Mutagens - classification Mutagens - standards Reactive oxygen Risk Assessment - methods Risk Assessment - standards Threshold concepts Tumors |
title | Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals—new aspects to be considered in a European perspective |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T14%3A12%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Carcinogenicity%20categorization%20of%20chemicals%E2%80%94new%20aspects%20to%20be%20considered%20in%20a%20European%20perspective&rft.jtitle=Toxicology%20letters&rft.au=Bolt,%20Hermann%20M&rft.date=2004-06-15&rft.volume=151&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=41&rft.pages=29-41&rft.issn=0378-4274&rft.eissn=1879-3169&rft.coden=TOLED5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.toxlet.2004.04.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17975802%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17975802&rft_id=info:pmid/15177638&rft_els_id=S0378427404002103&rfr_iscdi=true |