Histopathology of Carcinogenesis
R. R. [email protected]
Outline
• Overview of carcinogenesis• Lexicon of neoplasia (speaking the language)• Basics of carcinogenesis• Identifying & predicting potential carcinogens• Interpreting tumor bioassay data
Overview of Carcinogenesis
• Complex disease with multiple causes• Influenced by multiple intrinsic and
extrinsic factors• Multistep progressive process at the
genetic and phenotypic level
Overview of Carcinogenesis
Lexicon of Carcinogenesis• Neoplasia (neoplasm, tumor, cancer)• Hyperplasia
– Physiological– Pathological
• Metaplasia• Anaplasia
– Differentiation• Dysplasia
Neoplasia“….abnormal mass of tissue, the growth of which exceeds and is uncoordinated with that of normal tissue and persists in the same excessive manner after cessation of the stimuli which evoked the change” Willis 1952.
Hyperplasia = increase in number of cells in an organ or tissue
• Increased volume of the organ or tissue• Usually associated with hypertrophy
e.g., hormone-induced uterine hyperplasia(increase in number of smooth muscle andepithelial cells and increased size of these cells)
Two categories of hyperplasiaPhysiological hyperplasia
Hormonal – mammary gland proliferation at pubertyCompensatory – myth of Prometheus
Pathological hyperplasiaExcessive (potentially reversible) hormonal stimulationExcessive (but controlled) growth factor stimulation
Two categories of hyperplasiaPhysiological hyperplasia
Hormonal – mammary gland proliferation at pubertyCompensatory – myth of Prometheus
Two categories of hyperplasiaPhysiological hyperplasia
Hormonal – mammary gland proliferation at pubertyCompensatory – myth of Prometheus
Pathological hyperplasiaExcessive (potentially reversible) hormonal stimulationExcessive (but controlled) growth factor stimulationMay be associated with concurrent toxicity
Mechanisms of physiological hyperplasiaIncreased local growth factors and/or receptorsActivation of intracellular signaling pathways
Transcription factors turn on specific genesCell cycle genes~70 other genes
Proliferation of existing cells and also stem cells
Hepatectomy – paracrine stimulation from cytokines &polypeptide growth factors
Mechanisms of pathological hyperplasia
Exaggerated response to growth factors and hormonal stimulation
Hormone imbalance – excessive androgens & benignprostatic hyperplasia
Wound healing – a specific form of hyperplasia whereparenchymal cells are replaced by scar tissue
Viral infections – papilloma virus-induced growth factors leadingto skin warts and mucosal epithelial hyperplasias
Chronic hepatitis – stem cells proliferate since the capacity ofhepatocytes to proliferate is compromised
Metaplasia – one mature adult cell type replaced by another mature adult cell type
Adaptive process – more sensitive cells replaced by cells less sensitive cells to an adverse
environmentFrequently – columnar to squamous (epithelial cells)
Cigarette smokeVitamin A deficiencyLoss of mucus secretion and mucociliar escalator function
Mesenchymal metaplasia – connective tissue osseous tissue
If stimulus persists – malignant transformation of the
metaplastic cells can occur
Mechanisms of metaplasiaDifferentiation of stem cells along a new pathwayCytokines, growth factors, and extracellular matrix components
induce transcription factors that trigger phenotypic-specific genes
Vitamin A affects differentiation pathways of stem cellsSome cytostatic drugs disrupt DNA methylation with potential
to lead to metaplasia
6-MercaptopurineMethotrexateDacarbazineProcarbazineCarbopltin
Differentiation and Anaplasia
• Differentiation in neoplasia refers to morphological and functional similarity to normal• Anaplasia is lack of differentiation• Benign tumors are typically well-differentiated• Malignant tumors range from differentiated to anaplastic with at least some loss of differentiation present• Anaplasia is a hallmark of malignancy• Anaplasia = “to form backward”
“reverse differentiation” vs.
stem cell theory of carcinogenesis
Morphological aspects of anaplasia
• Pleomorphism = variation in size and shape• Abnormal nuclear morphology
• Hyperchromatism• Karyomegaly• Large nucleoli
• Mitoses tend to be increased in malignancy• Giant cells and multinucleated cells
Another example of multinucleated giant hepatocytes.Chronic exposure to chlordane in a mouse.
Dysplasia = disordered growthPrimarily an epithelial changeConstellation of changes
Loss of polarityLoss of uniformityPleomorphismNuclear abnormalities
Normal forestomach
Forestomachdysplasia
If marked and involves the entire thickness of the epithelium but is confined there = carcinoma in situ
Normal Mouse Trachea
Normal mouse trachea
90-Day Formaldehyde Inhalation Study in Mice
90-Day Formaldehyde Inhalation Study in Mice
90-Day Formaldehyde Inhalation Study in Mice
90-Day Formaldehyde Inhalation Study in Mice
90-Day Formaldehyde Inhalation Study in Mice
Neoplasia = “….abnormal mass of tissue, the growth of which exceeds and is uncoordinated with that of normal tissue and persists in the same excessive manner after cessation of the stimuli which evoked the change” Willis 1952.
Growth RateCell production vs cell lossMalignant neoplasms grow faster than benign (oversimplified)Growth rate is not constant
HormonesAdequacy of blood supplyOther factors
Anticancer agents tend to work on fast-growing tumorsCells in proliferative phaseIf a low percentage (~5%) of the cells are in the proliferative phase = slow-growing tumor that is refractory to treatmentDebulking tumor with surgery surviving cells enter the cell cycle (leave G0) and become susceptible to anticancer agent treatment
Essential alterations for malignancy Self-sufficient growth (don’t require external stimulation) Ability to synthesize growth factors Insensitive to growth inhibitory signals Evasion of apoptosis Defects in DNA repair Limitless replication – maintain telomere length and function Sustained angiogenesis Ability to invade and metastasize
Hepatocellular carcinoma Pulmonary metastases
Hyperplasia
• -plasia = formation• Neoplasia - new formation• Hyperplasia – enhanced formation• Metaplasia – changed formation• Anaplasia – backward formation• Dysplasia – abnormal formation
SUMMARY
LexiconOf
Carcinogenesis
Outline
• Overview of carcinogenesis• Lexicon of neoplasia (speaking the language)• Basics of carcinogenesis• Carcinogenic agents• Identifying & predicting potential human
carcinogens• Interpreting actual tumor bioassay data
Basics of Carcinogenesis• Molecular factors• Morphologic factors• Modulators and modifiers
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
Growth Factors
• Normal development– Embryogenesis
• Normal cell function– Locomotion, contractility
• Regeneration– E.g., hepatectomy
• Repair– Wound healing– Scar tissue formation
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
Molecular Factors in Carcinogenesis
• Non-lethal genetic damage• Alteration of normal regulatory genes
– Growth promoting protooncogenes– Growth inhibiting cancer suppressor genes– Genes that regulate programmed cell death (apoptosis)
• Alteration of genes that regulate DNA repair• Epigenetic changes (methylation, imprinting)• Multistep cascade of events
Multiple Roles of Proto-oncogenes
• Participate in functions related to cell growth and proliferation
• Encode proteins that function as:– Growth factor ligands– Growth factor receptors– Signal transducers– Transcription factors– Cell cycle components
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
Proto-oncogene ActivationGrowth Factor (Proto-oncogene) [Mode of Action]
PDGF-β (SIS) [overexpression]FGF (HST-1; INT-2) [overexpression; amplification]TGTFa (TGFα) [overexpression]HGF (HGF) [overexpression]
Growth Factor Receptor (Proto-oncogene) [Mode of Action]EGF receptors (ERB-B1; ERB-B2) [overexpression; amplification]CSF-1 receptor (FMS) [point mutation]PDGF receptor (PDGF-R) [overexpression]Receptors for neurotrophic factors (KIT) [point mutation]
Proto-oncogene ActivationSignal Transduction (Proto-oncogene) [Mode of Action]
GTP-binding (K-RAS; H-RAS; N-RAS) [point mutation]Nonreceptor tyrosine kinase (ABL) [translocation]RAS signal transduction (BRAF) [point mutation]WNT signal transduction (b-catenin) [point mutation; overexpression]
Nuclear Regulatory Proteins (Proto-oncogene) [Mode of Action]Transcriptional activators (C-MYC; N-MYC; L-MYC)
[translocation; amplification]
Cell Cycle RegulatorsCyclins (CYCLIN D) [translocation; amplification] (CYCLIN E) [overexpression]Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK4) [amplification; point mutation]
Human and Animal Neoplasms Associated with Activated Oncogenes
Multistage Hepatocarcinogenesis
normalfocus of altered
hepatocytes
hepatocellularadenoma
hepatocellularcarcinoma
H-rasactivation
altered Brca1
altered TGFa
CathepsinsOsteopontin
GoliathMIG
MHC class II
B-catenin
apoptosis c-foscyr61
Basics of Carcinogenesis• Molecular factors• Morphologic factors• Modulators and modifiers
NORMAL
PATHOLOGICAL HYPERPLASIAAND PRENEOPLASIA
ADENOMA
CARCINOMA
Thyroid hypertrophy, hyperplasia and adenoma secondary to liver enzyme induction
Normal thyroid Follicular cell hyperplasiaand hypertrophy
Follicular cell adenoma
Hepatic Foci of Cellular Alteration
Eosinophilic Focus Clear Cell Focus
Basophilic Focus Mixed Cell Focus
Hepatocellular Adenoma
Hepatocellular Adenoma
Hepatocellular Adenoma
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Carcinoma arising in Adenoma
Carcinoma arising in Adenoma
Carcinoma arising in Adenoma
Hepatoblastoma arising in adenoma
Essential alterations for malignancy Self-sufficient growth (don’t require external stimulation) Ability to synthesize growth factors Insensitive to growth inhibitory signals Evasion of apoptosis Defects in DNA repair Limitless replication – maintain telomere length and function Sustained angiogenesis Ability to invade and metastasize
Progression of Proliferative Liver Lesions
Basophilic Focus Hepatocellular adenoma
Metastatic carcinoma Hepatocellular carcinoma
Progression of Proliferative Forestomach Lesions
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
From Robbins and Cotran Pathologic BasisOf Disease, 7th Edition, 2004.
Basics of Carcinogenesis• Molecular factors• Morphologic factors• Modulators and modifiers
Modifying Factors
• Cell proliferation & apoptosis• Enzyme induction• Methylation & imprinting• Oncogenes & tumor suppressor genes• Hormones• Diet & body weight• Intercellular communication
promotioninitiation progression
Outline
• Overview of carcinogenesis• Lexicon of neoplasia (speaking the language)• Basics of carcinogenesis• Identifying & predicting potential carcinogens• Interpreting tumor bioassay data
Identifying potential carcinogens
Genotoxic vs non-genotoxic agentsRodent bioassays
History & evolutionPathology evaluation of
bioassayPeer review (previous Hardisty
presentation)Predicting carcinogenic hazard
Using toxicity study data
Carcinogenic agentsChemical carcinogensRadiant energy
UV, ionizing radiationOncogenic DNA viruses
PapillomavirusEpstein-Barr virusHepatitis B virus
Oncogenic RNA virusesHuman T-cell leukemia virus
Type 1
1700’s 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
• Bernardino Ramazzini - 1713• John Hill - 1761• Percival Pott - 1775• Elmslie -1866• Jonathon Hutchinson - 1888• Rehn - 1895
• Yamagiwa & Ichikawa - 1918• Murphy & Sturm - 1925• Cook et al. - 1932• Sasaki & Yoshida - 1935• Berenblum - 1941• Magee & Barnes - 1956
• Realization that chemicals, environmental factors, and aspects of life style cause cancer
• Concept of the cancer bioassay
1700’s 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
NCI NTP
CANCER BIOASSAY TIMELINE
1700’s 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
NCI NTP
FDA
OECD
IARC
EPA
ICH
VICH
EUROTOX
IUTOX
SOT
DST
BTS
STP
BSTPASIATOX
ESTPCANCER BIOASSAY TIMELINE
1700’s 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
NCI NTP
CANCER BIOASSAY TIMELINE
50 Male and 50 female F344 rats & B6C3F1 MiceMaximum tolerated dose & lower dosesRoutes: feed, gavage, drinking water,
inhalation, dermalTest duration of 2 yearsDiet: NIH-07 and NTP-2000Extensive histopathology & peer review
“Current” Testing Paradigm
Positive Aspects of the Bioassay• Standardized (informative databases)• Yields positive results for known human
carcinogens• Trans-species carcinogens• Identification of important variables &
modulators• Informative for chronic toxicity• Appreciation of benefits of historical controls• Reproducible• Search for alternatives
Limitations of the Bioassay• Resource intensive• Inherent insensitivity for detecting weak or
moderate carcinogens• Not ideal for determining if an agent has
carcinogenic potential under actual human exposure conditions
• Single chemical exposure vs “real world”• Historical inertia• Debate regarding relevance
– Rodent-specific mechanisms– High doses
Search for alternatives
1700’s 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
NCI NTP
CANCER BIOASSAY TIMELINE
• A viable alternative needs a champion
• A successful alternative needs to be validated
• An ideal alternative should be less expensive and faster than the conventional bioassay
Model! Model! Who’s Got the Model?
• Genotoxicity batteries• Strain A mouse• Two-stage liver model• Neonatal mouse
model• Ito medium-term
model• Genetically
engineered mouse models
• Rat mammary gland• Local subcutaneous
injection• Guppy & Medaka• Hamster cheek pouch• Structure-activity
relationships & AI• Genomics &
proteomics
Model! Model! Who’s Got the Model?
Identifying potential carcinogens
Genotoxic vs non-genotoxic agentsRodent bioassays
History & evolutionPathology evaluation of
bioassayPeer review (previous Hardisty
presentation)Predicting carcinogenic hazard
Using toxicity study data
Pathology Evaluation
An iterative process for identificationof subtle differences among groups
of experimental animals
Defining Diagnostic Criteria• What is hyperplasia versus neoplasia in the broad
context of toxicologic pathology– There is a range of change– Diagnoses determined by training, published literature,
and experience– The greater the experience, the broader the ranges of
non-neoplastic and benignNORMAL
PATHOLOGICAL HYPERPLASIAAND PRENEOPLASIA
ADENOMA
CARCINOMA
Personal Diagnostic Judgment• Inexperienced pathologists
tend to overdiagnose neoplastic changes
• Thousands of tissues later, the number of tumors diagnosed is decreased
• Result of increased familiarity with spectrum of hyperplasia and neoplasia in laboratory animals, increased confidence
Drift Over Time
• Professional drift – changing criteria for a given lesion
• Personal drift – Increased familiarity with a given lesion with greater exposure
Reasons for a Pathology Peer Review
• Routine peer reviews • Assure consistency in terminology and grading• Increase confidence in the study data• Ensure data meets requirements of regulatory
agencies• Confirm target tissues/lesions• Confirm NOEL
• Non-routine peer reviews• Target tissue reviews• Pathology Working Groups
Identifying potential carcinogens
Genotoxic vs non-genotoxic agentsRodent bioassays
History & evolutionPathology evaluation of
bioassayPeer review (previous Hardisty
presentation)Predicting carcinogenic hazard
Using toxicity study data
Rodent Liver Toxicity• Cytomegaly• Hypertrophy• Necrosis• Bile duct hyperplasia• Hepatocellular degeneration (rats)
• Liver weight
Cytomegaly Hypertrophy
Necrosis Bile duct hyperplasia
DegenerationToxicologic Pathology 39: 393-401 (2004)
Summary from Allen et al., 2004
Mouse• A chemical showing a positive
response for hypertrophy, cytomegaly and necrosis has a high likelihood of producing liver neoplasia
• Failed to identify more than 1/3 of the liver carcinogens
• Inclusion of increased liver weight increased sensitivity but decreased specificity of the prediction
Rat• No single lesion was a strong
predictor• Hepatocellular hypertrophy
was the strongest predictor• Bile duct hyperplasia and
hepatocellular degeneration did not contribute
• Grouping hypertrophy, cytomegaly, and necrosis correctly identified 7 of 11 liver carcinogens but doubled the number of false positives
Toxicological Sciences80: 225-229 (2004)
Toxicological Sciences 2005 88(1):18-23
Prediction of 2-Year Carcinogenicity Study Results for Pharmaceutical Products: How Are We Doing?
Abigail Jacobs1 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, USFDA, 9201 Corporate Blvd, Rm N212, Rockville, Maryland 20850 Received May 4, 2005; accepted June 24, 2005
Some have proposed that 2-year carcinogenicity studies may not be necessary if the material is a direct-acting DNA mutagen, induces liver enzymes, causes hyperplasia or toxicity in particular organs, causes cell proliferation, is cytotoxic, causes hormonal perturbations, or if one has QSAR analyses or ‘omics information. Safety pharmacology data, pharmacologic activity, metabolism data, and results of 13-week dose ranging studies (with organ weight data, clinical chemistry data, hematologic data, clinical signs and histopathologic findings) were compared with results of 2-year carcinogenicity studies reviewed by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)/FDA. The experience with the ICH genetic toxicology battery and alternative carcinogenicity models was
also reviewed. It appears that the information available from short-term studies is not currently sufficient to accurately
and reliably predict the outcome of long-term carcinogenicity studies.
SOT Annual MeetingSalt Lake City, UTMarch 9, 2010
Preneoplastic lesions not predictive
A completely negative12-month rat toxicity study don’t need to do a carcinogenicity study
Liver response appears generically predictive even for other target tissues
• Core set of mechanistic assays– DNA adducts, repair & reactivity– DNA crosslinking– Genotoxicity– Receptor-mediated assays– Microtubule inhibition– Intercellular communication– Enzyme induction– Cell cycle perturbations– Endocrine disruption– Altered methylation– Oxidative stress; free radicals– Immunosuppression– Serum biochemistry– Genomics/proteomics– Hormone activity
• Abnormal phenotype• Toxicologic pathology
ANCHORING
• Biologically plausible
• Computational/Informatics– SAR & other alerts– Artificial intelligence– Modeling, including PBPK– Database mining– Focused epidemiology
C A N C E R
The Way Forward• Search for alternatives
– Multiple inbred strains– “Humanized” mouse
• Continued “refinement and improvement” of the conventional bioassay– Stop studies– In utero and neonatal
exposures• Develop predictive strategies to
minimize the need for long term in vivo testing
• Embracing each new approach and each new promising technology– Systems biology– “Omics” and biological
pathways– Comparative genomics– Multimodality
molecular and functional imaging
– In situ molecular methods
– New biomarkers
Interpreting Tumor Bioassay Data
Purpose of interpreting bioassay = detect differences that may be directly or indirectly related to exposure to the test agent
Considerations in Interpretation of Bioassay Data
Neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Benign vs. malignant• Latency• Multiplicity• Levels of evidence of carcinogenicity
Non-neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Adaptive vs. adverse• Severity• MTD, NOEL and NOAEL
Modifying Factors
• Diet & body weight• Cell proliferation & apoptosis• Enzyme induction• Methylation & imprinting• Oncogenes & tumor suppressor genes• Hormones• Intercellular communication
Dose and Dose Relationships
Considerations
• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions
– Common lesions will tend to have a higher background (spontaneous) incidence
– Unique (rare) lesions typically show marginal increases compared to control
• Lumping & Splitting– Relates to how the pathologist categorizes his or her findings
• Direct vs. indirect causality– Determination if observed effect is secondary to something other
than a direct response to the test agent
Considerations in Interpretation of Bioassay Data
Neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Benign vs. malignant• Latency• Multiplicity• Levels of evidence of carcinogenicity
Non-neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Adaptive vs. adverse• Severity• MTD, NOEL and NOAEL
Progression of Proliferative Liver Lesions
Basophilic Focus Hepatocellular adenoma
Metastatic carcinoma Hepatocellular carcinoma
Progression of Proliferative Forestomach Lesions
Considerations• Species/strain susceptibility
– Gallbladder adenoma/carcinoma– Hepatoblastoma– Stellate cell tumor
Hepatoblastoma Stellate cell tumor
GallbladderAdenoma
LungColon
LiverSkin
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Relative Susceptibility of Inbred Mouse Strains toChemically Induced Carcinogenesis
A/J
AKR
BALB
/c
C3H
C57B
L/6
DBA/
2
P/J
SWR
Drinkwater & Bennett 1991
Male Mouse Liver Tumors(Spontaneous Frequency)
King-Herbert & Thayer - 2006
Relative susceptibilities of selected strains to liver tumor induction
Historical Control Incidences
Considerations
• Neoplasia• Benign vs. malignant• Latency• Multiplicity
Considerations in Interpretation of Bioassay Data
Neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Benign vs. malignant• Latency• Multiplicity• Levels of evidence of carcinogenicity
Non-neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Adaptive vs. adverse• Severity• MTD, NOEL and NOAEL
NTP Levels of Evidence of Carcinogenicity• Clear evidence• Some evidence• Equivocal evidence• No evidence - no chemically related increases in
malignant or benign neoplasms• Inadequate study - because of major limitations,
cannot be interpreted as valid for showing either the presence or absence of carcinogenic activity
NTP Levels of Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity
• Clear evidence (CE) - a dose related increase in: a) malignant neoplasms, b) benign and malignant neoplasms, or marked increase in benign neoplasms with ability to progress
Stomach - benign NE tumor 0 0 13** 9**Stomach - malignant NE tumor 0 1 12** 26**Combined 0 1 25** 34**
Methyleugenol - CE in female rats
N = 50
Lung - A/B adenoma 5 9 10 16**Lung - A/B carcinoma 2 1 5 3 Combined 7 10 15* 19**
Some evidence (SE) - an increase of benign, malignant, or combined in which the strength of the response is less than that required for clear evidence.
Ethylbenzene - SE in male mice
NTP Levels of Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity
N = 50
Lung - A/B adenoma 0 0 0 3Lung - A/B carcinoma 0 1 1 1Combined 0 1 1 4
• Equivocal evidence (EE) - a marginal increase of neoplasms that may be chemically related
Molybdenum Trioxide - EE in male rats
NTP Levels of Evidence of Carcinogenic Activity
N = 50
Spectrum of Esophageal Lesions
Normal mucosa
Hyperplasia
PapillomaSquamous cell carcinoma
Esophageal lesions in a two-year rat carcinogenicity study. Male Sprague-Dawley rats. Administration of compound by gavage in water. N= 50/dose. The intended route of human exposure is by oral tablet.
Esophageal lesions in a two-year rat carcinogenicity study. Male Sprague-Dawley rats. Administration of compound by gavage in water. N= 60/dose. The intended route of human exposure is by oral tablet.
• Laboratory historic control = 0• No esophageal neoplasms in the females or in mice (males and females).• No forestomach tumors in the rats. No oral cavity tumors in rats. • Compound is irritating.• Esophageal inflammation in a 28-day and 6-month study at higher doses:
Control 3/10 versus High dose 8/10
Intended human exposure is by coated tablet that dissolves in the stomach.
Evidence of carcinogenic activity (n=290) Liver 57 % Lung 22 % Kidney 22 % Mammary gland 14 % Hematopoeitic 13 % Forestomach 12 % Thyroid 10 % Vascular System 9 %
Is There Evidence of Carcinogenicity in the Liver of Male Mice Treated with 2-Butoxyethanol?
Liver - Hepatocellular adenoma 22 18 18 17
Liver - Hepatocellular carcinoma 10 11 16 21**
Liver - combined 30 24 31 30
N = 50
Is There Evidence of Carcinogenicity in the Liver of Male Mice Treated with 2-Butoxyethanol?
Liver - Hepatocellular adenoma 22 18 18 17
Liver - Hepatocellular carcinoma 10 11 16 21**
Liver - combined 30 24 31 30
Historical control range for Hepatocellular carcinoma 14 to 40%
N = 50
What might explain the lack of a clear tumor responsein the high dose group?
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study
What might explain the lack of a clear tumor responsein the high dose group?
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study
There was no decrease in tumor latency or multiplicity. Survival and body weight gain were similar among the 4 groups.
What could explain the statistically significant low dose response?
Is this a positive rodent carcinogen?
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rodent carcinogenicity study
There was no decrease in tumor latency or multiplicity. Survival and body weight gain were similar among the 4 groups.
What could explain the statistically significant low dose response?
Is this a positive rodent carcinogen?
Other types of liver tumorsHemangioma/hemangiosarcomaHistiocytic sarcomaKupffer cell sarcomaStellate cell tumorCholangiomaCholangiocarcinoma
Hemangiosarcoma
Cholangiocarcinoma Histiocytic sarcoma Stellate cell tumor
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rat carcinogenicity studyN = 50
What diagnostic entities are legitimate to combine?
Would you classify this as a positive carcinogenic response?
Liver tumor response in a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study
What diagnostic entities are legitimate to combine?
Would you classify this as a positive carcinogenic response?
N = 50
Considerations in Interpretation of Bioassay Data
Neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Benign vs. malignant• Latency• Multiplicity• Levels of evidence of carcinogenicity
Non-neoplasia• Modifying factors• Dose relationships• Trans-sex & trans-species• Common vs. unique lesions• Lesion progression• Species/strain susceptibility• Controls• Lumping & Splitting• Direct vs. indirect causality• Adaptive vs. adverse• Severity• MTD, NOEL and NOAEL
Summary• Purpose of interpreting bioassay = detect
differences that may be directly or indirectly related to exposure to the test agent– In rodent studies we are concerned with effects in a group of animals rather
than in individual animals– Dose relationships are very important– Responses are compared to the concurrent control and, in instances where
the response is questionable, comparison to historic controls may be appropriate
– It is sometimes useful to combine certain lesions to better interpret bioassay results
Case 3 – Malignant Lymphoma in female B6C3F1 mice
0 ppm
10 ppm
100 ppm
1000 ppm
Incidence(percentage)
All organs – malignant lymphoma
3 (6%)
8 (16%)
11*(22%)
13**(26%)
Historical control data: mean 15.5%; range 6-32%50 animals examined per group; *p<0.05; **p<0.01
Case 6 – Uterine tumors in female Wistar rats
C LD MD HDNumber examined 40 49 50 50Fibromatous Polyp 7 11 12 10Multiple Fibrous Polyps 1 1 0 2
Adenocarcinoma 6 4 5 7Papilloma 0 0 1 0Carcinoma in situ 1 0 0 1Stromal Sarcoma 0 0 0 2Poorly Diff. Sarcoma 0 0 0 1Unclassified Sarcoma 0 0 0 1
Case 2 – Hemangioma in male B6C3F1 mice
Hemangioma only 0 ppm
10 ppm
100 ppm
1000 ppm
Liver 0 1 0 0
Heart 0 0 1 0
Spleen 0 0 0 0
Subcutis 0 1 0 0
Mesentery 0 0 1 2
All Organs 0 2 2 2
Case 2 – Hemangiosarcoma in male B6C3F1 mice
Hemangiosarcoma only
0 ppm
10 ppm
100 ppm
1000 ppm
Liver 2 5 6 8
Heart 0 0 0 0
Spleen 0 2 2 1
Subcutis 1 3 1 7
Mesentery 0 3 13 7
All Organs 3 13 22 23
Case 2 – Hemangioma or Hemangiosarcoma in male B6C3F1 mice
Hemangioma/HSA 0 ppm
10 ppm
100 ppm
1000 ppm
Liver 2 6 6 8*
Heart 0 0 1 0
Spleen 0 2 2 1
Subcutis 1 4 1 7*
Mesentery 0 3 14** 9**
All Organs 3 15** 24** 25**50 animals examined per group; *p<0.05; **p<0.01
Case 2 – Male B6C3F1 miceHistorical Control Data
All Sites Rate (%) Range (%)
Hemangioma 0.5 0-4
Hemangiosarcoma 5.4 0-12
Case 2 – Male B6C3F1 miceHistorical Control Data
Rate (%) Range (%)
Liver - Hemangioma 0.2 0-2
Spleen - Hemangioma 0.1 0-2
Subcutis - Hemangioma 0.0 0.0
Liver - Hemangiosarcoma 2.6 0-6
Spleen - Hemangiosarcoma 2.2 0-8
Subcutis - Hemangiosarcoma 0.7 0-4