Search

Rodent cancer bioassays have been long-required studies for regulatory assessment of human cancer hazard and risk. These studies use hundreds of animals, are resource intensive, and certain aspects of these studies have limited human relevance. The past 10 years have seen an exponential growth of new technologies with the potential to effectively evaluate human cancer hazard and risk while reducing, refining, or replacing animal use. To streamline and facilitate uptake of new technologies, a workgroup comprised of scientists from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and industry stakeholders developed a framework for waiver rationales of rodent cancer bioassays for consideration in agrochemical safety assessment. The workgroup used an iterative approach, incorporating regulatory agency feedback, and identifying critical information to be considered in a risk assessment-based weight of evidence determination of the need for rodent cancer bioassays. The reporting framework described herein was developed to support a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study waiver rationale, which includes information on use pattern(s), exposure scenario(s), pesticidal mode-of-action, physicochemical properties, metabolism, toxicokinetics, toxicological data including mechanistic data, and chemical read-across from similar registered pesticides. The framework could also be applied to endpoints other than chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, and for chemicals other than agrochemicals.

Methods for investigating the Mode of Action (MoA) for rodent liver tumors via constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) activation are outlined here, based on current scientific knowledge about CAR and feedback from regulatory agencies globally. The key events (i.e., CAR activation, altered gene expression, cell proliferation, altered foci and increased adenomas/carcinomas) can be demonstrated by measuring a combination of key events and associative events that are markers for the key events. For crop protection products, a primary dataset typically should include a short-term study in the species/strain that showed the tumor response at dose levels that bracket the tumorigenic and non-tumorigenic dose levels. The dataset may vary depending on the species and the test compound. As examples, Case Studies with nitrapyrin (in mice) and metofluthrin (in rats) are described. Based on qualitative differences between the species, the key events leading to tumors in mice or rats by this MoA are not operative in humans. In the future, newer approaches such as a CAR biomarker signature approach and/or in vitro CAR3 reporter assays for mouse, rat and human CAR may eventually be used to demonstrate a CAR MoA is operative, without the need for extensive additional studies in laboratory animals.

Although an internationally-adopted in vitro dermal absorption test guideline is available (OECD Test Guideline 428), the replacement of the in vivo approach in North America for pesticide formulations has not occurred due to concern over the reliability and consistency of the in vitro results. A 2012 workshop convened a panel of experts in the conduct of in vitro studies used for pesticide risk assessment, together with North American regulators, to examine techniques for in vitro dermal absorption testing. Discussions led to the recommended “best practices” for the conduct of in vitro dermal absorption studies provided herein. The workshop participants also developed recommendations for reporting study results in order to improve the quality and consistency of the data submitted to regulatory agencies in North America. Finally, a case study is presented that illustrates the use of the “triple-pack” approach; the studies, conducted for the registration of sulfoxaflor, follow the standardized recommendations provided at the workshop. In addressing the concerns of these regulators and of the regulated community, and providing harmonized recommendations to facilitate comparative data analyses, it is anticipated that wider acceptance of in vitro dermal absorption studies alone can be achieved for pesticide risk assessment.