Publications (3) View all
-
Article: An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Data collected from 182 marketed and nonmarketed pharmaceuticals demonstrate that there is little value gained in conducting a rat two-year carcinogenicity study for compounds that lack: (1) histopathologic risk factors for rat neoplasia in chronic toxicology studies, (2) evidence of hormonal perturbation, and (3) positive genetic toxicology results. Using a single positive result among these three criteria as a test for outcome in the two-year study, fifty-two of sixty-six rat tumorigens were correctly identified, yielding 79% test sensitivity. When all three criteria were negative, sixty-two of seventy-six pharmaceuticals (82%) were correctly predicted to be rat noncarcinogens. The fourteen rat false negatives had two-year study findings of questionable human relevance. Applying these criteria to eighty-six additional chemicals identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as likely human carcinogens and to drugs withdrawn from the market for carcinogenicity concerns confirmed their sensitivity for predicting rat carcinogenicity outcome. These analyses support a proposal to refine regulatory criteria for conducting a two-year rat study to be based on assessment of histopathologic findings from a rat six-month study, evidence of hormonal perturbation, genetic toxicology results, and the findings of a six-month transgenic mouse carcinogenicity study. This proposed decision paradigm has the potential to eliminate over 40% of rat two-year testing on new pharmaceuticals without compromise to patient safety.Toxicologic Pathology 06/2011; 39(4):716-44. · 1.91 Impact Factor -
Article: Interlaboratory evaluation of genomic signatures for predicting carcinogenicity in the rat.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Critical Path Institute recently established the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium, a collaboration between several companies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, aimed at evaluating and qualifying biomarkers for a variety of toxicological endpoints. The Carcinogenicity Working Group of the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium has concentrated on sharing data to test the predictivity of two published hepatic gene expression signatures, including the signature by Fielden et al. (2007, Toxicol. Sci. 99, 90-100) for predicting nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogens, and the signature by Nie et al. (2006, Mol. Carcinog. 45, 914-933) for predicting nongenotoxic carcinogens. Although not a rigorous prospective validation exercise, the consortium approach created an opportunity to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate microarray data from short-term rat studies on over 150 compounds. Despite significant differences in study designs and microarray platforms between laboratories, the signatures proved to be relatively robust and more accurate than expected by chance. The accuracy of the Fielden et al. signature was between 63 and 69%, whereas the accuracy of the Nie et al. signature was between 55 and 64%. As expected, the predictivity was reduced relative to internal validation estimates reported under identical test conditions. Although the signatures were not deemed suitable for use in regulatory decision making, they were deemed worthwhile in the early assessment of drugs to aid decision making in drug development. These results have prompted additional efforts to rederive and evaluate a QPCR-based signature using these samples. When combined with a standardized test procedure and prospective interlaboratory validation, the accuracy and potential utility in preclinical applications can be ascertained.Toxicological Sciences 06/2008; 103(1):28-34. · 4.65 Impact Factor -
Article: Best practices for reporting pathology interpretations within GLP toxicology studies.
Toxicologic Pathology 02/2006; 34(6):806-9. · 1.91 Impact Factor
