SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human & Experimental Toxicology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carter, R.L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Carter, R.L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Carcinogenicity of Chemicals: The Weight of Evidence

R.L. Carter

Haddow Laboratories, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5PT, JK

. The evidence discussed here is derived from epidemiology, long-term bioassays in laboratory animals, and predictive short-term tests.

Epidemiological data are obtained directly from human studies and are most compelling when hey demonstrate a large relative risk and a clear dose-response in association with a distinctive umour type. Exposure to a suspected carcinogen and the doses involved are, however, often difficult to determine, and the most sophisticated epidemiological methods are relatively insensitive. There are no epidemiological data for most occupational/environmental chemicals.

Long-term bioassays can present major problems in design, interpretation and extrapolation. 'articular difficulties are associated with the planning of appropriate dose levels and the occurrence of certain tumours at high incidence in both control and test groups. Results from animal bioassays et priorities for concern and action but they cannot be reliably used for quantitative assessment of human risk.

Evidence of potential carcinogenicity derived from short-term predictive tests, involving a wide variety of systems with diverse end-points, is increasingly important. Emphasis is placed on the teed for more in vivo procedures with a broadening of the scope of somatic cell targets.

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 7, No. 5, 411-418 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/096032718800700505


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement