4.7 Review

Inhaled particles and lung cancer, part B: Paradigms and risk assessment

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 110, Issue 1, Pages 3-14

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20064

Keywords

poorly soluble particle; risk assessment; overload; inflammation; fibrosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Poorly soluble particles of low toxicity (PSP), such as CB, TiO2 and coal mine dust, have been demonstrated to cause lung cancer in rodents, being most pronounced in rats. Adequate epidemiologic studies do not clearly indicate increased lung cancer rates in humans exposed to such particles. This has caused controversial positions in regulatory decisions on PSP on different levels. The present review discusses the current paradigms in rodent particle carcino-genicity, i.e., (i) role of particle overload and of persistent inflammation and (ii) fibrosis as an intermediate step in particle-induced lung cancer with regard to human risk assessment. Fibrosis, which is usually considered a precursor of lung cancer in humans, was not related to lung tumors in an animal study using 6 different particles, each at 3 dosages. Lung tumors after both inhalation and intratracheal instillation of PSP are related to particle surface dose, which forwards hazard assessment at surface-based nonoverload concentrations and a standard setting using surface as an exposure metric. The scarce data available on humans do not support the overload concept but suggest a role for persistent lung inflammation. Differences in antioxidant protection between different rodent species correlate with susceptibility to PSP-induced carcinogenicity and support the need for detailed studies on antioxidant response in humans. Apart from such bridging studies, further focus is also needed on surface chemistry and modifications in relation to their adverse biologic effects. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available