Cutaneous Phototoxicity: Clinical Observations versus Histopathological Findings

Determination of test material-induced cutaneous phototoxicity for risk assessment has traditionally been based on visually observed skin reactions such as erythema, edema, and flaking. Because of its role in determining a toxic effect, the use of histopathological evaluation in this determination a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Toxicologic pathology 2016-06, Vol.44 (4), p.545-551
Hauptverfasser: Learn, Douglas B., Elliott, Michelle W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 551
container_issue 4
container_start_page 545
container_title Toxicologic pathology
container_volume 44
creator Learn, Douglas B.
Elliott, Michelle W.
description Determination of test material-induced cutaneous phototoxicity for risk assessment has traditionally been based on visually observed skin reactions such as erythema, edema, and flaking. Because of its role in determining a toxic effect, the use of histopathological evaluation in this determination arises from time to time. However, there is little published information regarding the time course and types of histopathologic changes in the skin after test material-induced phototoxic insult nor any regulatory requirement or precedent for its use. This work evaluated both the visual and histopathological time course of the phototoxic response of the skin of the Long-Evans rat after oral administration of the phototoxins sparfloxacin and 8-methoxypsoralen (MOP) followed by a single exposure to solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation. Both sparfloxacin and 8-MOP elicited visual cutaneous reactions and microscopic changes consistent with a phototoxic response. The visually observed cutaneous time course and elicited histopathologic changes differed in response and extent for each phototoxin, but in both instances, microscopic evaluation did not alter the determination of a phototoxic response based on visual observations. These results indicate that, though histopathologic evaluations may have value for investigating mechanisms of phototoxicity, histopathologic evaluation of the skin is not warranted for determination of phototoxic potential in safety assessment intended for regulatory submission.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0192623316643617
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808703850</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0192623316643617</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1808703850</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-c7cf0a7eb4d15cffe96a26ab488da2341274d0d6f86456e7d2b18357b9f2b6db3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EoqUww4QYWQJ3tmO7I4rKh1QJBpgtf0KqpClxItH_nlQpDEjohhve7z3dPUIuEG4QpbwFnFNBGUMhOBMoD8gUc8YyFICHZLqTs50-IScprQBQIYdjMqESJAMlpuS86DuzDk2frl4-mm6Yr9KV3faUHEVTpXC23zPydr94LR6z5fPDU3G3zByjrMucdBGMDJZ7zF2MYS4MFcZypbyhjCOV3IMXUQmeiyA9tahYLu08Uiu8ZTNyPeZu2uazD6nTdZlcqKrxKI0KlASmchhQGFHXNim1IepNW9am3WoEvatD_61jsFzu03tbB_9r-Pl_ALIRSOY96FXTt-vh2_8DvwFOvmWU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1808703850</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cutaneous Phototoxicity: Clinical Observations versus Histopathological Findings</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Learn, Douglas B. ; Elliott, Michelle W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Learn, Douglas B. ; Elliott, Michelle W.</creatorcontrib><description>Determination of test material-induced cutaneous phototoxicity for risk assessment has traditionally been based on visually observed skin reactions such as erythema, edema, and flaking. Because of its role in determining a toxic effect, the use of histopathological evaluation in this determination arises from time to time. However, there is little published information regarding the time course and types of histopathologic changes in the skin after test material-induced phototoxic insult nor any regulatory requirement or precedent for its use. This work evaluated both the visual and histopathological time course of the phototoxic response of the skin of the Long-Evans rat after oral administration of the phototoxins sparfloxacin and 8-methoxypsoralen (MOP) followed by a single exposure to solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation. Both sparfloxacin and 8-MOP elicited visual cutaneous reactions and microscopic changes consistent with a phototoxic response. The visually observed cutaneous time course and elicited histopathologic changes differed in response and extent for each phototoxin, but in both instances, microscopic evaluation did not alter the determination of a phototoxic response based on visual observations. These results indicate that, though histopathologic evaluations may have value for investigating mechanisms of phototoxicity, histopathologic evaluation of the skin is not warranted for determination of phototoxic potential in safety assessment intended for regulatory submission.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0192-6233</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-1601</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0192623316643617</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27073086</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Animals ; Dermatitis, Phototoxic - diagnosis ; Dermatitis, Phototoxic - pathology ; Female ; Rats ; Rats, Long-Evans</subject><ispartof>Toxicologic pathology, 2016-06, Vol.44 (4), p.545-551</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2016.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-c7cf0a7eb4d15cffe96a26ab488da2341274d0d6f86456e7d2b18357b9f2b6db3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192623316643617$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192623316643617$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27073086$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Learn, Douglas B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, Michelle W.</creatorcontrib><title>Cutaneous Phototoxicity: Clinical Observations versus Histopathological Findings</title><title>Toxicologic pathology</title><addtitle>Toxicol Pathol</addtitle><description>Determination of test material-induced cutaneous phototoxicity for risk assessment has traditionally been based on visually observed skin reactions such as erythema, edema, and flaking. Because of its role in determining a toxic effect, the use of histopathological evaluation in this determination arises from time to time. However, there is little published information regarding the time course and types of histopathologic changes in the skin after test material-induced phototoxic insult nor any regulatory requirement or precedent for its use. This work evaluated both the visual and histopathological time course of the phototoxic response of the skin of the Long-Evans rat after oral administration of the phototoxins sparfloxacin and 8-methoxypsoralen (MOP) followed by a single exposure to solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation. Both sparfloxacin and 8-MOP elicited visual cutaneous reactions and microscopic changes consistent with a phototoxic response. The visually observed cutaneous time course and elicited histopathologic changes differed in response and extent for each phototoxin, but in both instances, microscopic evaluation did not alter the determination of a phototoxic response based on visual observations. These results indicate that, though histopathologic evaluations may have value for investigating mechanisms of phototoxicity, histopathologic evaluation of the skin is not warranted for determination of phototoxic potential in safety assessment intended for regulatory submission.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Phototoxic - diagnosis</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Phototoxic - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Rats, Long-Evans</subject><issn>0192-6233</issn><issn>1533-1601</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EoqUww4QYWQJ3tmO7I4rKh1QJBpgtf0KqpClxItH_nlQpDEjohhve7z3dPUIuEG4QpbwFnFNBGUMhOBMoD8gUc8YyFICHZLqTs50-IScprQBQIYdjMqESJAMlpuS86DuzDk2frl4-mm6Yr9KV3faUHEVTpXC23zPydr94LR6z5fPDU3G3zByjrMucdBGMDJZ7zF2MYS4MFcZypbyhjCOV3IMXUQmeiyA9tahYLu08Uiu8ZTNyPeZu2uazD6nTdZlcqKrxKI0KlASmchhQGFHXNim1IepNW9am3WoEvatD_61jsFzu03tbB_9r-Pl_ALIRSOY96FXTt-vh2_8DvwFOvmWU</recordid><startdate>201606</startdate><enddate>201606</enddate><creator>Learn, Douglas B.</creator><creator>Elliott, Michelle W.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><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>201606</creationdate><title>Cutaneous Phototoxicity</title><author>Learn, Douglas B. ; Elliott, Michelle W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c323t-c7cf0a7eb4d15cffe96a26ab488da2341274d0d6f86456e7d2b18357b9f2b6db3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Phototoxic - diagnosis</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Phototoxic - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Rats, Long-Evans</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Learn, Douglas B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliott, Michelle W.</creatorcontrib><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>Toxicologic pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Learn, Douglas B.</au><au>Elliott, Michelle W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cutaneous Phototoxicity: Clinical Observations versus Histopathological Findings</atitle><jtitle>Toxicologic pathology</jtitle><addtitle>Toxicol Pathol</addtitle><date>2016-06</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>545</spage><epage>551</epage><pages>545-551</pages><issn>0192-6233</issn><eissn>1533-1601</eissn><abstract>Determination of test material-induced cutaneous phototoxicity for risk assessment has traditionally been based on visually observed skin reactions such as erythema, edema, and flaking. Because of its role in determining a toxic effect, the use of histopathological evaluation in this determination arises from time to time. However, there is little published information regarding the time course and types of histopathologic changes in the skin after test material-induced phototoxic insult nor any regulatory requirement or precedent for its use. This work evaluated both the visual and histopathological time course of the phototoxic response of the skin of the Long-Evans rat after oral administration of the phototoxins sparfloxacin and 8-methoxypsoralen (MOP) followed by a single exposure to solar-simulated ultraviolet radiation. Both sparfloxacin and 8-MOP elicited visual cutaneous reactions and microscopic changes consistent with a phototoxic response. The visually observed cutaneous time course and elicited histopathologic changes differed in response and extent for each phototoxin, but in both instances, microscopic evaluation did not alter the determination of a phototoxic response based on visual observations. These results indicate that, though histopathologic evaluations may have value for investigating mechanisms of phototoxicity, histopathologic evaluation of the skin is not warranted for determination of phototoxic potential in safety assessment intended for regulatory submission.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>27073086</pmid><doi>10.1177/0192623316643617</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0192-6233
ispartof Toxicologic pathology, 2016-06, Vol.44 (4), p.545-551
issn 0192-6233
1533-1601
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1808703850
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Animals
Dermatitis, Phototoxic - diagnosis
Dermatitis, Phototoxic - pathology
Female
Rats
Rats, Long-Evans
title Cutaneous Phototoxicity: Clinical Observations versus Histopathological Findings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T03%3A43%3A47IST&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=Cutaneous%20Phototoxicity:%20Clinical%20Observations%20versus%20Histopathological%20Findings&rft.jtitle=Toxicologic%20pathology&rft.au=Learn,%20Douglas%20B.&rft.date=2016-06&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=545&rft.epage=551&rft.pages=545-551&rft.issn=0192-6233&rft.eissn=1533-1601&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0192623316643617&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1808703850%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=1808703850&rft_id=info:pmid/27073086&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0192623316643617&rfr_iscdi=true