4.6 Article

Improving the International Agency for Research on Cancer's consideration of mechanistic evidence

Journal

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 319, Issue -, Pages 39-46

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2017.01.020

Keywords

IARC; Mode of Action; Hazard assessment; Carcinogen classification; Systematic review

Funding

  1. American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently developed a framework for evaluating mechanistic evidence that includes a list of 10 key characteristics of carcinogens. This framework is useful for identifying and organizing large bodies of literature on carcinogenic mechanisms, but it lacks sufficient guidance for conducting evaluations that fully integrate mechanistic evidence into hazard assessments. Objectives: We summarize the framework, and suggest approaches to strengthen the evaluation of mechanistic evidence using this framework. Discussion: While the framework is useful for organizing mechanistic evidence, its lack of guidance for implementation limits its utility for understanding human carcinogenic potential. Specifically, it does not include explicit guidance for evaluating the biological significance of mechanistic endpoints, inter-and intra-individual variability, or study quality and relevance. It also does not explicitly address how mechanistic evidence should be integrated with other realms of evidence. Because mechanistic evidence is critical to understanding human cancer hazards, we recommend that IARC develop transparent and systematic guidelines for the use of this framework so that mechanistic evidence will be evaluated and integrated in a robust manner, and concurrently with other realms of evidence, to reach a final human cancer hazard conclusion. Conclusions: IARC does not currently provide a standardized approach to evaluating mechanistic evidence. Incorporating the recommendations discussed here will make IARC analyses of mechanistic evidence more transparent, and lead to assessments of cancer hazards that reflect the weight of the scientific evidence and allow for scientifically defensible decision-making. (C) 2017 Gradient. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available