2 n McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Highlighting the Need for AOPs in Streamlining Hazard.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Dosimetry in Risk Assessment and a bit More Mel Andersen McKim Conference QSAR and Aquatic Toxicology & Risk Assessment June 27-29, 2006.
Advertisements

Evaluation of a potential mutagenic MOA based on analysis of the weight of evidence and using the modified Hill criteria Martha M. Moore, Ph.D. Director,
Trichloroethylene (TCE) Toxicity Values Update Waste Site Cleanup Advisory Committee Meeting March 27, 2014 C. Mark Smith Ph.D., M.S. Deputy Director Office.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Chemical Carcinogens – workplace risk assessment and health surveillance Tiina Santonen Paide.
Carcinogen Classification Criteria Patricia Richter Ph.D., DABT Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee June 8, 2010.
June 2010 LANDSIEDEL 1 Chemical Industries Role in Tomorrows Toxicity Testing Robert Landsiedel, Susanne Kolle, Tzutzuy Ramirez, Hennicke Kamp and Ben.
National Pesticide Program A New Toxicology Testing Paradigm: Meeting Common Needs Steven Bradbury, Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office.
IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO CARCINOGENICITY Vicki L. Dellarco, Ph.D. Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection.
1 Development & Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Predictive Tools EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
William H. Farland, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Office of Research and Development U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Biomarkers:
EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Chemical Category Formation: Toxicology and REACH Dr Steven Enoch Liverpool John Moores University 14 th May 2009.
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
What Do Toxicologists Do?
Food and Drug Administration Preclinical safety data for “first in human” (FIH) clinical trials in healthy volunteer subjects Oncology Drug Advisory Committee.
June 16-19, USEPA Cancer Guidelines: Mode of Carcinogenic Action 1 ICABR – Impacts of the Bioeconomy on Agricultural Sustainability, the Environment.
Luděk Bláha, PřF MU, RECETOX BIOMARKERS AND TOXICITY MECHANISMS 13 – BIOMARKERS Summary and final notes.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
Guidance for Industry M4S: The CTD-Safety
ILSI Risk Science Institute Acrylamide Toxicity: Research to Address Key Data Gaps Presented by Dr. Stephen S. Olin ILSI Risk Science Institute.
Application of Toxicology Databases in Drug Development (Estimating potential toxicity) Joseph F. Contrera, Ph.D. Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis.
Committee on Carcinogenicity (COC) Approach to Risk Assessment of Genotoxic Carcinogens David H. Phillips* COC Chairman Descriptive vs. Quantitative.
Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) September
Office of Pesticide Programs 21st Century Screening Assessment of Pesticides – A Regulatory View Vicki Dellarco, Ph.D. Senior Science Advisor Office of.
28/05/12 Questions (Rispondete alle domande che seguono usando il colore rosso per il testo) Tossicologia - Rubbiani Maristella.
VISUALIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECT PATHWAYS Hristo Aladjov.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Mike Comber Consulting TIMES-SS Assessment of skin sensitisation hazard Presented on behalf of the TIMES-SS consortia.
Luděk Bláha, PřF MU, RECETOX BIOMARKERS AND TOXICITY MECHANISMS 01 - INTRODUCTION.
Kevin M. Crofton, PhD US Environmental Protection Agency McKim Conference Duluth MN September 17, 2008 Thyroid Mediated CNS Dysfunction How to use what.
Health Canada experiences with early identification of potential carcinogens - An Existing Substances Perspective Sunil Kulkarni Hazard Methodology Division,
Risk Assessment Nov 7, 2008 Timbrell 3 rd Edn pp Casarett & Doull 7 th Edn Chapter 7 (pp )
Juan Alguacil, MD Huelva University Brussels, 26 June 2012 Limits on Occupational Exposure Limits for Carcinogens 8th Seminar on workers’ protection &
Biomarkers Biomarkers - markers in biological systems with a sufficently long half-life which allow location where in the biological system change occur.
Which information identifies a chemical as endocrine disrupting? Poul Bjerregaard Institute of Biology University of Southern Denmark Odense and Danish.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.
0 Focusing on the Adverse Outcomes of ER-mediated Pathways Rodney Johnson ORD/MED McKim Conference September 16-18, 2008.
Mike Comber TIMES-SS Application of Reactivity Principles in Screening for Skin Sensitisers Presented on behalf of the TIMES-SS consortia & International.
QSAR Foundation Goals Facilitate promising QSAR technologies for setting priorities (TIMES-SS, Multipath, ASTER, OECD Toolbox) Encourage the expansion.
The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for Skin Sensitisation (SS): How We Got Here and Where We are Going 1 T. W. Schultz Professor Emeritus The University.
The McKim Conferences for the Strategic Use of Testing Gitchee Gumee Conference Center Duluth, Minnesota June 27-29, 2006.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
Chapter 15.3 Risk Assessment 2002 WHO report: “Focusing on risks to health is the key to preventing disease and injury.” risk assessment—process of evaluating.
OECD’s work on Adverse outcome pathways
NUATRC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop October Air Toxics Air Toxics: What We Know, What we Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know Human Health Effects –
McKim Conference on Predictive Toxicology The Inn of Lake Superior Duluth, Minnesota September 16-18, 2008 Toxicity Pathways as an Organizing Concept Gilman.
Science Symposium, 26 May 2014, New Delhi, India Dr Gerald Renner Director Technical Regulatory Affairs Cosmetics Europe EU scenario on alternatives in.
McKim Workshop on Strategic Approaches for Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment Duluth, MN, USA 19 May, 2010.
Furan-Induced Cytotoxicity, Cell Proliferation, and Tumorgenicity in Mouse Liver Dr. Glenda Moser.
The Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the U.S.
Pediatric Subcommittee of the AIDAC October 29-30, Topical Immunosuppressants (Calcineurin Inhibitors) - Animal Toxicology October 30, 2003 Barbara.
McKim Conference on Predictive Toxicology The Inn of Lake Superior Duluth, Minnesota September 25-27, 2007 Toxicity Pathways as an Organizing Concept Gilman.
Perspective on the current state-of-knowledge of mode of action as it relates to the dose response assessment of cancer and noncancer toxicity Jennifer.
QSAR in CANCER ASSESSMENT PURPOSE and AGENDA Gilman Veith Duluth MN May 19-21, 2010.
Toxic effects Acute / chronic Reversible / irreversible Immediate / delayed Idiosyncratic - hypersensitivity Local / systemic Target organs.
Nonclinical Perspective on Initiating Phase 1 Studies for Biological Oncology Products – Case Studies Anne M. Pilaro, Ph.D. DBOP/OODP/CDER Oncology Drugs.
“Fit for Purpose” MOA/Human Relevance Analysis M.E. (Bette) Meek McLaughlin Centre University of Ottawa 1.
James G. Farrelly, Ph.D. Pharmacology Team Leader Division of Antiviral Drug Products Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Food and Drug Administration.
Acute Toxicity Studies Single dose - rat, mouse (5/sex/dose), dog, monkey (1/sex/dose) 14 day observation In-life observations (body wt., food consumption,
General Concepts in QSAR for Using the QSAR Application Toolbox
FIFRA SAP Meeting February 2, 2010
Visualization of Adverse effect pathways
Susan Makris U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
OAK CREEK Toxicology & Risk Assessment Consulting
Introduction to the AOP framework concept and online course
Ovanes Mekenyan, Milen Todorov, Ksenia Gerova
Using Mode of Action to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk Estimates
EFSA’s Chemical Hazards Database
RSESS March 18, 2008 Robert Osterberg
Presentation transcript:

2 n McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Highlighting the Need for AOPs in Streamlining Hazard Assessment Methods (for cancer assessment) Catherine Willett, PhD Director, Regulatory Toxicology Humane Society of the United States

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 1.Rodent Cancer Bioassay: cost/benefit? 2.Advantages of mechanism based approaches 3.AOP approaches and activities at OECD Outline

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Minimally 400 animals, 2 – 4 million USD and 3 years* Often performed in two species (drugs, food additives) Or rat bioassay plus shorter-term transgenic mouse assays 1 –ras H2 + p 53 +/- : use half the number of animals and for 6 months –Reduced animal use mitigated by need for creation and maintenance of multiple lines –Only improves identification if both used (geno and non-genotoxic)  no animal savings, minimal cost savings *Thomas RS, Pluta L, Yang L, Halsey TA. Toxicol Sci (1): Alden et al. Veterinary Pathology (3): Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Cost

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Drugs (review of 533) –False positives: 80% –False negatives: 27% –Sensitivity: 73% 12 out of 44 chemicals with human concern not seen in either rodent species “When tested repeatedly, most molecules….had conflicting test results.” Alden et al. Veterinary Pathology (3): Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Benefit?

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Other chemicals (e.g. NTP studies) –82% of 500 studies resulted in noncommittal classifications* –Only 57% of chemicals tested multiple time give consistent results –22% of all chemicals tested test positive 1 Largely due to findings at MTD and irrespective of biological plausibility Nevertheless results in classification as “possible human carcinogen” –Positive correlation? 9/10 known human carcinogens have tested positive either rats or mice in NTP studies All known human carcinogens have tested positive in some rodent assay, with the possible exception of arsenic “This result says more about the persistence of toxicologists than about the ability of a standard (rodent) protocol to predict human carcinogenicity.” 1 * Wasted Money Wasted Lives. People for the Ethical treatment of Animals Ennerver and Lave. Reg. Toxicol. Pharma : Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Benefit?

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 400 animals 2 – 4 million USD 3 years 1. Rodent Cancer Bioassay: Cost / benefit 2 False Positives: 80% False Negatives: 27% or 82% noncommittal classifications Too high

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 2. Advantages of mechanistic approaches 1.Refine design and interpretation of animal studies 2.Demonstrate human relevance (or not) 3.Improve predictivity for both human health and other target species 4.Design assessment strategies that are not dependent on animal testing

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 2. Early adoption of mechanistic approaches DNA reactive vs non-DNA reactive –Mouse transgenic lines –3Rs value highly debatable –Chemical alerts for DNA reactivity –Used to flag chemicals –Genotoxicity battery –Currently used to exclude chemicals –In vitro tests have high false positive rates –in vivo tests are insensitive –Battery misses non-DNA reactive chemicals –Cell transformation assays

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 2. Early adoption of mechanistic approaches Human Relevance Frameworks -Characterize MoA of each class of carcinogens -Determine which rodent MoA is possible relevant to humans -Built using case studies Timeline stolen from V. Dellarco: EPA & IPCS Conceptual Framework for Evaluating a Mode of Action for Chemical Carcinogenesis. ILSI Framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action. ILSI Extends Framework to non-cancer outcomes & life stage information. IPCS 2006 & 2008 Adopts Human Relevance Framework: Boobis, et al. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a non-cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008;38(2):87-96.

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Short-term screening tests * –Step 1: 90-day “screen” E.g. hepatocarcinogenicity: hepatocellular necrosis, hypertrophy, cytomegaly, increased liver weight –Step 2: mechanistic screens (most 90-days) Histopathology Serum enzymes Acyl Co-A oxidase CYP induction CAR, PSR, AHR binding ER binding (or histologic evaluation of endocrine-sensitive organs) Iron staining Reversibility Metabolic activation *Cohen, S.M. Toxicol. Pathol (3): Proposals to improve efficiency of rodent-based assessment

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Testing strategy to rule out carcinogens * –Negative genotoxicity in standard battery –Negative hormonal perturbation in chronic studies effects on endocrine-related tissues, hormone levels –Lack of histopathologic risk factors in 6 month rat study neoplasia in any tissue –Negative in 6 month transgenic mouse Both genotox and non-genotox models required? –Positives go into a standard rat bioassay * Sistare et al. Toxicol. Path : Proposals to improve efficiency of rodent-based assessment

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 2. Molecular approaches Gene expression profiling following 13 week exposure* –Predict lung tumors in B6C3F1 female mice –Overall accuracy 77.5% in predicting mouse lung tumors –25 chemicals sufficient to develop predictive model (could create predictive models for 8 organs using 200 chemicals) –Gene profiles placed into biologic process categories 1 Used to calculate BMD values for liver or lung Some transcriptional and tumor incident BMD values correlate well  transcriptional BMD values could potentially be used as points of departure for cancer as well as non-cancer risk assessment * Thomas, R.S. et al. Toxicol. Sci (2): Thomas, R.S. et al. Toxicol. Sci (1): Could the predictive capacity of ‘omics be improved by AOPs?

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 3. Adverse Outcome Pathway Approaches Adverse Outcome Pathway: a chemical and biological description of what occurs when a substance interacts with a living organism and results in an adverse reaction – a biological map from the initiating event through the resulting adverse outcome that describes both mechanism and mode of action. From: Ankley et al. Environ.Toxicol.Chem (3): 730–741.

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 3. Adverse Outcome Pathway Approaches AOPs can be useful for: Near-term: –Developing chemical categories and structure activity relationships –Increasing certainty of interpretation of both existing and new information –Developing integrated testing strategies that maximize useful information gained from minimal testing Longer-term: –Identifying key events for which non-animal tests can be developed, thereby facilitating mechanism-based, non-animal chemical assessment –Creating predictive toxicological assessments with low uncertainty and high human relevance

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Adverse Outcome Pathway QSAR focus area Chemicals Receptor Binding ER Binding Liver Cells Altered Protein Expression Vitellogenin Liver Altered proteins Gonad Ova-testis; Sex- reversed; Fecundity Sex reversal; Altered behavior; Repro. ER-mediated Reproductive Impairment In vivo MOLECULAR Target CELLULAR Response TISSUE/ORGAN INDIVIDUAL Skewed Sex Ratios; Yr Class POPULATION In vitro Assay focus area Toxicity Pathway 3. AOP activities at OECD: expert consultation on the ER decision framework in Feb 2009 P. Schmieder, McKim conference 2008.

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 3. AOP activities at OECD 2010 Workshop on using mechanistic information in forming chemical categories near-term recommendations: 1) Develop AOPs for well-established effects (e.g., skin sensitization) as well as several longer term health and ecotoxicological endpoints. 3) Establish, populate and maintain an accessible, electronic repository e.g. Effectopedia. 4) Develop a strategic plan including : –an information template for developing and assessing AOPs –guiding principles for assessing completeness and acceptance of an AOP –a format for attaining mutual acceptance of an AOP. 5) Harmonize terminology associated with AOPs. 6) Integrate AOPs in the OECD QSAR Toolbox.

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 3. AOP activities at OECD: Sensitization draft AOP OECD (Draft) The Adverse Outcome Pathway for Skin Sensitisation Initiated by Covalent Binding to Proteins

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD 3. AOP activities at OECD Agreed at last Joint Meeting in June 2011 that AOPs were to become the cornerstone for all future projects in the test guidelines programme. Under development: A process for development and maintenance of AOPs A Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing Completeness of AOPs

2 nd McKim Workshop on Reducing Data Redundancy in Cancer Assessment | 8 – 10 May 2012 | Baltimore, MD Thank you. Catherine Willett, PhD Director, Regulatory Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Alternatives t The Humane Society of the United States 2100 L Street NW Washington, DC humanesociety.org/animalsinlaboratories humanesociety.org/animalsinlaboratories