Search

Since the inception of the IARC Monographs Programme in the early 1970s, this Programme has developed 119 Monograph Volumes on more than 1000 agents for which there exists some evidence of cancer risk to humans. Of these, 120 agents were found to meet the criteria for classification as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Volume 100 of the IARC Monographs, compiled in 2008–2009 and published in 2012, provided a review and update of the 107 Group 1 agents identified as of 2009. These agents were divided into six broad categories: (I) pharmaceuticals; (II) biological agents; (III) arsenic, metals, fibers and dusts; (IV) radiation; (V) personal habits and indoor combustions; and (VI) chemical agents and related occupations. The Group I agents reviewed in Volume 100, as well as five additional Group 1 agents defined in subsequent Volumes of the Monographs, were used to assess the degree of concordance between sites where tumors originate in humans and experimental animals including mice, rats, hamsters, dogs, and non-human primates using an anatomically based tumor nomenclature system, representing 39 tumor sites and 14 organ and tissue systems. This evaluation identified 91 Group 1 agents with sufficient evidence (82 agents) or limited evidence (9 agents) of carcinogenicity in animals. The most common tumors observed in both humans and animals were those of the respiratory system including larynx, lung, and lower respiratory tract. In humans, respiratory system tumors were noted for 31 of the 111 distinct Group 1 carcinogens identified up to and including Volume 109 of the IARC Monographs, comprising predominantly 14 chemical agents and related occupations in category VI; seven arsenic, metals, fibers, and dusts in category III, and five personal habits and indoor combustions in category V. Subsequent to respiratory system tumors, those in lymphoid and hematopoietic tissues (26 agents), the urothelium (18 agents), and the upper aerodigestive tract (16 agents) were most often seen in humans, while tumors in digestive organs (19 agents), skin (18 agents), and connective tissues (17 agents) were frequently seen in animals. Exposures to radiation, particularly X- and γ-radiation, and tobacco smoke were associated with tumors at multiple sites in humans. Although the IARC Monographs did not emphasize tumor site concordance between animals and humans, substantial concordance was detected for several organ and tissue systems, even under the stringent criteria for sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity used by IARC. Of the 60 agents for which at least one tumor site was identified in both humans and animals, 52 (87%) exhibited tumors in at least one of the same organ and tissue systems in humans and animals. It should be noted that some caution is needed in interpreting concordance at sites where sample size is particularly small. Although perfect (100%) concordance was noted for agents that induce tumors of the mesothelium, only two Group 1 agents that met the criteria for inclusion in the concordance analysis caused tumors at this site. Although the present analysis demonstrates good concordance between animals and humans for many, but not all, tumor sites, limitations of available data may result in underestimation of concordance.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous chemicals that interfere with hormone action, thereby increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits and obesity. A complex literature of mechanistic studies provides evidence on the hazards of EDC exposure, yet there is no widely accepted systematic method to integrate these data to help identify EDC hazards. Inspired by work to improve hazard identification of carcinogens using key characteristics (KCs), we have developed ten KCs of EDCs based on our knowledge of hormone actions and EDC effects. In this Expert Consensus Statement, we describe the logic by which these KCs are identified and the assays that could be used to assess several of these KCs. We reflect on how these ten KCs can be used to identify, organize and utilize mechanistic data when evaluating chemicals as EDCs, and we use diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A and perchlorate as examples to illustrate this approach., In this Expert Consensus Statement, the authors define 10 key characteristics (KCs) for endocrine-disrupting chemicals. They further describe the logic by which these KCs are identified and the assays that could be used to assess several of these KCs.

Since the inception of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in the early 1970s, the IARC Monographs Programme has evaluated more than 1000 agents with respect to carcinogenic hazard; of these, up to and including Volume 119 of the IARC Monographs, 120 agents met the criteria for classification as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Volume 100 of the IARC Monographs provided a review and update of Group 1 carcinogens. These agents were divided into six broad categories: (I) pharmaceuticals; (II) biological agents; (III) arsenic, metals, fibers, and dusts; (IV) radiation; (V) personal habits and indoor combustions; and (VI) chemical agents and related occupations. Data on biological mechanisms of action (MOA) were extracted from the Monographs to assemble a database on the basis of ten key characteristics attributed to human carcinogens. After some grouping of similar agents, the characteristic profiles were examined for 86 Group 1 agents for which mechanistic information was available in the IARC Monographs up to and including Volume 106, based upon data derived from human in vivo, human in vitro, animal in vivo, and animal in vitro studies. The most prevalent key characteristic was "is genotoxic", followed by "alters cell proliferation, cell death, or nutrient supply" and "induces oxidative stress". Most agents exhibited several of the ten key characteristics, with an average of four characteristics per agent, a finding consistent with the notion that cancer development in humans involves multiple pathways. Information on the key characteristics was often available from multiple sources, with many agents demonstrating concordance between human and animal sources, particularly with respect to genotoxicity. Although a detailed comparison of the characteristics of different types of agents was not attempted here, the overall characteristic profiles for pharmaceutical agents and for chemical agents and related occupations appeared similar. Further in-depth analyses of this rich database of characteristics of human carcinogens are expected to provide additional insights into the MOA of human cancer development.

Volume 100 in the series of IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans comprises an update and review of relevant information on all agents determined to induce cancer in humans. These Group 1 agents are categorized in 6 Monographs (Volumes 100A-F) published in 2012. This paper describes the methodology and stringent criteria used in the creation of a comprehensive database on tumors noted in animals and humans for the carcinogens reviewed in Volume 100, and for additional Group 1 agents that were identified in subsequent Monographs through Volume 109. The development of this database involved the systematic collection of relevant data on tumors detected in humans and experimental animals identified by the Working Groups that conducted evaluations reported in the IARC Monographs. The database includes all human tumor sites identified by the Working Groups, along with all tumor sites for which there was sufficient evidence in experimental animals. This database provides a basis for assessing the degree of concordance between tumor sites observed in humans and experimental animals for Group 1 agents identified through Volume 109.

Objectives There are some common occupational agents and exposure circumstances for which evidence of carcinogenicity is substantial but not yet conclusive for humans. Our objectives were to identify research gaps and needs for 20 agents prioritized for review based on evidence of widespread human exposures and potential carcinogenicity in animals or humans. Data sources For each chemical agent (or category of agents), a systematic review was conducted of new data published since the most recent pertinent International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph meeting on that agent. Data extraction Reviewers were charged with identifying data gaps and general and specific approaches to address them, focusing on research that would be important in resolving classification uncertainties. An expert meeting brought reviewers together to discuss each agent and the identified data gaps and approaches. Data synthesis Several overarching issues were identified that pertained to multiple agents; these included the importance of recognizing that carcinogenic agents can act through multiple toxicity pathways and mechanisms, including epigenetic mechanisms, oxidative stress, and immuno- and hormonal modulation. Conclusions Studies in occupational populations provide important opportunities to understand the mechanisms through which exogenous agents cause cancer and intervene to prevent human exposure and/or prevent or detect cancer among those already exposed. Scientific developments are likely to increase the challenges and complexities of carcinogen testing and evaluation in the future, and epidemiologic studies will be particularly critical to inform carcinogen classification and risk assessment processes.

An international, interdisciplinary working group of expert scientists met in June 2004 to develop IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans (IARC Monographs) on formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol, and 1-tert-butoxy-2-propanol. Each IARC Monograph includes a critical review of the pertinent scientific literature and an evaluation of an agent’s potential to cause cancer in humans. After a thorough discussion of the epidemiologic, experimental, and other relevant data, the working group concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans, based on sufficient evidence in humans and in experimental animals. In the epidemiologic studies, there was sufficient evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer, “strong but not sufficient” evidence of leukemia, and limited evidence of sinonasal cancer. The working group also concluded that 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxy-2-propanol are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans, each having limited evidence in experimental animals and inadequate evidence in humans. These three evaluations and the supporting data will be-published as Volume 88 of the IARC Monographs.

Trichloroethylene (TCE), an environmental contaminant of National concern, is the focus of a new health risk assessment process incorporating the Proposed Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines. This paper describes not only how TCE became an environmental problem for the Air Force, but also details the new Risk Assessment process envisioned by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). Insights on epidemiological evaluations, both past and future, and their impact on the cancer classification of TCE are discussed. Examples of how physiologically based pharmacokinetics and dose-response characterization described in the new Cancer Guidelines are applied to TCE are provided. In addition, a variety of modeling techniques are discussed for the development of reference doses (oral exposure) and reference concentrations (inhalation exposures) for TCE. Finally, the role of risk communication is included. This new process provides an example of how interagency (EPA, Department of Defense. Department of Energy) and extramural (industry, academia) partnerships can provide greater gains to the nation, as a whole, than any of the parts on their own.

Consideration of mechanistic data has the potential to improve the analysis of both epidemiologic studies and cancer bioassays. IARC has a classification system in which mechanistic data can play a pivotal role. Since 1991, IARC has allowed an agent to be classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) when there is less than sufficient evidence in humans but there is sufficient evidence in experimental animals and "strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity." Mechanistic evidence can also substitute for conventional cancer bioassays when there is less than sufficient evidence in experimental animals, just as mechanistic evidence can substitute for conventional epidemiologic studies when there is less than sufficient evidence in humans. The IARC Monographs have used mechanistic data to raise or lower a classification that would be otherwise based on epidemiologic studies and cancer bioassays only. Recently, the IARC Monographs have evaluated several agents where mechanistic data were pivotal to the overall evaluation: benzo[a]pyrene, carbon black and other poorly soluble particles, ingested nitrates and nitrites, and microcystin-LR. In evaluating mechanistic data, it is important to consider alternative mechanistic hypotheses, because an agent may induce tumors through multiple mechanisms.

Carcinogenicity bioassays generally provide the best means of assessing the potential for a chemical to be a human carcinogenic hazard. The results of carcinogenicity bioassays are usually the key determinants of IARC Monograph evaluations. Along with carcinogenicity bioassays and epidemiological studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also encourages the consideration of mechanistic data and other relevant data. During 2005 IARC is updating the Preamble to the IARC Monographs, which describes the principles and procedures used in developing the Monographs, including the criteria that guide the evaluations. Proposed revisions to the Preamble make some changes in the criteria for evaluating carcinogenicity in experimental animals to reflect the greater confidence that can be placed in Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) studies. Other changes will give more specific guidance for the evaluation of mechanistic data. Sections on mechanistic data will be given more prominence in future Monographs and will be more closely linked with toxicokinetics. Future Monographs will also include a new section on susceptible individuals, populations, and life stages that will often be based on the understanding of mechanisms. In addition, the draft Preamble discusses IARC's procedures for promoting impartial evaluations by avoiding conflicts of interests and ensuring that working groups are free from interference.

Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde cause toxicity to the nasal epithelium of rats and mice upon inhalation. In addition, formaldehyde above certain concentrations induces dose-related increases in nasal tumors in rats and mice, but glutaraldehyde does not. Using the 2006 IPCS human framework for the analysis of cancer mode of action (MOA), an MOA for formaldehyde was formulated and its relevance was tested against the properties of the noncarcinogenic glutaraldehyde. These compounds produce similar patterns of response in histopathology and in genotoxicity tests (although formaldehyde has been much more extensively tested studied). The MOA is based on the induction of sustained cytotoxicity and reparative cell proliferation induced by formaldehyde at concentrations that also induce nasal tumors upon long-term exposure. Data on dose dependency and temporal relationships of key events are consistent with this MOA. While a genotoxic MOA can never be ruled out for a compound that is clearly genotoxic, at least in vitro, the nongenotoxic properties fundamental to the proposed MOA can explain the neoplastic response in the nose and may be more informative than genotoxicity in risk assessment. It is not yet fully explained why glutaraldehyde remains noncarcinogenic upon inhalation, but its greater inherent toxicity may be a key factor. The dual aldehyde functions in glutaraldehyde are likely to produce damage resulting in fewer kinetic possibilities (particularly for proteins involved in differentiation control) and lower potential for repair (nucleic acids) than would be the case for formaldehyde. While there have been few studies of possible glutaraldehyde-associated cancer, the evidence that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen is strong for nasopharyngeal cancers, although less so for sinonasal cancers. This apparent discrepancy could be due in part to the classification of human nasal tumors with tumors of the sinuses, which would receive much less exposure to inhaled formaldehyde. Evaluation of the human relevance of the proposed MOA of formaldehyde in rodents is restricted by human data limitations, although the key events are plausible. It is clear that the human relevance of the formaldehyde MOA in rodents cannot be excluded on either kinetic or dynamic grounds.

Several national and international health agencies worldwide have established carcinogen identification programs with the aim of identifying the agents and exposures that contribute to the global burden of cancer. These programs have many features in common. IARC's program is described in some detail, with an emphasis on how evaluations can be changed by mechanistic data. Recently, several programs have expanded on the guidance they provide in assessing mechanistic data. The most comprehensive example is EPA's recent draft final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. In all programs, however, the principal role of mechanistic information has been to support the positive results observed in epidemiological studies or to discount the relevance of positive results observed in experimental animal bioassays. An alternative paradigm for carcinogen identification is proposed, one where mechanistic studies have a central role, rather than a supporting one. Under this paradigm, potentially carcinogenic agents would be identified by (1) identifying the key precursor events and processes involved in human cancer and (2) testing to see whether an agent can affect these events and processes. Under this paradigm, which is consistent with a multi-factorial view of carcinogenesis, it might be possible to identify carcinogens through mechanistic understanding alone, without waiting for epidemiological studies or 2-year carcinogenesis bioassays in rats and mice. This paradigm asks the question, "What is a human carcinogen? Is it an agent that we observe to induce tumors, or more generally, an agent with a clear role in tumor development?"

(1996). Cancer Risk Assessment: Historical Perspectives, Current Issues, and Future Directions. Drug and Chemical Toxicology: Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 161-185.