Search

The ICH S1B carcinogenicity global testing guideline has been recently revised with a novel addendum that describes a comprehensive integrated Weight of Evidence (WoE) approach to determine the need for a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. In the present work, experts from different organizations have joined efforts to standardize as much as possible a procedural framework for the integration of evidence associated with the different ICH S1B(R1) WoE criteria. The framework uses a pragmatic consensus procedure for carcinogenicity hazard assessment to facilitate transparent, consistent, and documented decision-making and it discusses best-practices both for the organization of studies and presentation of data in a format suitable for regulatory review. First, it is acknowledged that the six WoE factors described in the addendum form an integrated network of evidence within a holistic assessment framework that is used synergistically to analyze and explain safety signals. Second, the proposed standardized procedure builds upon different considerations related to the primary sources of evidence, mechanistic analysis, alternative methodologies and novel investigative approaches, metabolites, and reliability of the data and other acquired information. Each of the six WoE factors is described highlighting how they can contribute evidence for the overall WoE assessment. A suggested reporting format to summarize the cross-integration of evidence from the different WoE factors is also presented. This work also notes that even if a 2-year rat study is ultimately required, creating a WoE assessment is valuable in understanding the specific factors and levels of human carcinogenic risk better than have been identified previously with the 2-year rat bioassay alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In silico toxicology protocols are meant to support computationally-based assessments using principles that ensure that results can be generated, recorded, communicated, archived, and then evaluated in a uniform, consistent, and reproducible manner. We investigated the availability of in silico models to predict the carcinogenic potential of pregabalin using the ten key characteristics of carcinogens as a framework for organizing mechanistic studies. Pregabalin is a single-species carcinogen producing only one type of tumor, hemangiosarcomas in mice via a nongenotoxic mechanism. The overall goal of this exercise is to test the ability of in silico models to predict nongenotoxic carcinogenicity with pregabalin as a case study. The established mode of action (MOA) of pregabalin is triggered by tissue hypoxia, leading to oxidative stress (KC5), chronic inflammation (KC6), and increased cell proliferation (KC10) of endothelial cells. Of these KCs, in silico models are available only for selected endpoints in KC5, limiting the usefulness of computational tools in prediction of pregabalin carcinogenicity. KC1 (electrophilicity), KC2 (genotoxicity), and KC8 (receptor-mediated effects), for which predictive in silico models exist, do not play a role in this mode of action. Confidence in the overall assessments is considered to be medium to high for KCs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (immune system effects), 8, and 10 (cell proliferation), largely due to the high-quality experimental data. In order to move away from dependence on animal data, development of reliable in silico models for prediction of oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression, and cell proliferation will be critical for the ability to predict nongenotoxic compound carcinogenicity., Competing Interests: DK, LB, GJ and RT are independent contractors. AB is employed by Innovatune. AA is employed by Sanofi. JC, KC and FH are employed by Instem. AL is employed by Medline Industries. SM is employed by Nestle Research. JM is employed by Chemotargets SL. Amy Mihalchik-Burhans is employed by ToxStrategies, LLC. David Wooley is employed by ForthTox. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Keller, Bassan, Amberg, Burns Naas, Chambers, Cross, Hall, Jahnke, Luniwal, Manganelli, Mestres, Mihalchik-Burhans, Woolley and Tice.)