Stomach liver tumors-journal_club

424 views
343 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
424
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Gross anatomy of murine forestomach after NMBA treatment. Typical aspects of NMBA-induced pathology in forestomachs of Fhit +/+ mouse 54 (A), Fhit +/− mouse 59 (B), Fhit −/− mouse 15 (C), and Fhit −/− mouse 17 (D) are shown. (Magnification: ×5.)‏
  • NMBA-induced histopathology of murine forestomach. Examples of the carcinogen-induced lesions observed in the three strains of mice: hyperplasia in Fhit +/+ mouse 43 (A), early papilloma in Fhit +/+ mouse 53 (B), papilloma in Fhit +/− mouse 55 (C), squamous cell carcinoma in Fhit +/− mouse 62 (D), focal hyperplastic lesion in Fhit −/− mouse 17 (E), papilloma in Fhit −/− mouse 20 (F), squamous cell carcinoma in Fhit −/− mouse 8 (G), and foveolar hyperplasia of the glandular stomach in Fhit −/− mouse 28 (H). (Magnification: ×200.)‏
  • Stomach liver tumors-journal_club

    1. 1. Mode of Action of RodentForestomach Tumours:Relevance to Humans.R Cope
    2. 2. Gross anatomy of murine forestomach after NMBA(N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine) treatment. Zanesi N et al. PNAS 2001;98:10250-10255©2001 by The National Academy of Sciences
    3. 3. NMBA-induced histopathology of murine forestomach . Zanesi N et al. PNAS 2001;98:10250-10255©2001 by The National Academy of Sciences
    4. 4. IntroductionIntroduction Forestomach tumors/pre-neoplastic lesions in rats and mice are a common finding in chronic toxicology studies; Debate over the human relevance due to:  Dose and exposure differences between rodents and humans;  Substantial toxicokinetic differences (exposure);  Substantial anatomical differences;  Substantial physiological/metabolic differences of the forestomach epithelium;  Different mechanisms and tumor types in humans compared with rodents;
    5. 5. Dose and Exposure ProblemsDose and Exposure Differences Doses used in rodent oral carcinogenesis often far exceed normal human environmental exposure conditions (possible rare exception is some direct food additives); Doses that produce forestomach irritation in rodents really should be considered as exceeding the MTD – i.e. poor practice in rodent carcinogenesis studies and not according to GLP/test guidelines; Gavage can produce forestomach irritation and is not physiological:  Large volumes;  Damage to the mucosa;  Esophageal reflux;  Possibly replicates tablets (but not capsules);
    6. 6. Tissue specificityTissue Specificity Forestomach carcinogens divisible into at least 3 categories:  Produce forestomach tumors and tumors at other sites when administered by gavage;  Produce only forestomach tumors when administered by gavage;  Produce forestomach tumors and tumors when administered by non-oral routes; In terms of human relevance, forestomach + tumors at other sites is likely to be more important except in the case of site of first contact carcinogens.
    7. 7. Tissue concordance/anatomical issuesTissue concordance/anatomical issues Humans do not have a forestomach or a pars esophagea:  Roughly equivalent tissue in terms of histology is the esophagus;  Humans do not store food in the esophagus where as rodents store food in the forestomach;  Transit time through the human stomach is lower than transit time through the rodent stomach (forestomach)  difference in tissue exposure;  Chemicals pass quickly through the human esophagus and thus the exposure is very limited compared with chemical exposure of the rodent forestomach.
    8. 8. Tissue concordance/anatomical issuesTissue concordance/anatomical issues Physiological issues:  Rodent forestomach does not have a protective mucous coating  increased tissue exposure to chemicals and more prone to irritant effects;  pH in rodent forestomach is higher than the pH of the human stomach  relevant to detoxification (e.g. hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium in low pH of human stomach);  Potential metabolic differences of rodent forestomach epithelium  conversion of 2-butoxy ethanol to 2-butoxyacetic acid in rodent forestomach but not in human stomach;
    9. 9. Tumour types and biology issuesTumor types and biology issues Rodents  Predominant tumor types are papillomas (non-malignant) and squamous cell (low malignancy – regional metastasis) carcinomas;  Typically located at the limiting ridge;  Possibly have some relevance to human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma BUT chemical exposure of the human esophagus is much lower than in the rodent forestomach due to much lower transit time (no storage in esophagus);  Not relevant to human esophageal adenocarcinoma.
    10. 10. Tumour types and biology issuesTumor types and biology issues Humans  All human stomach cancers are gastric adenocarcinomas and arise from the glandular epithelium;  Rodent forestomach tumors have a different histiogenesis and are not relevant to the human gastric tumors;
    11. 11. Genotoxicity issuesGenotoxicity issues Forestomach carcinogens are divisible into 3 basic groups:  DNA reactive chemicals (classical in vivo genotoxic carcinogens)  Site of first contact carcinogens (generally direct acting carcinogens and are usually highly reactive chemicals; typically direct acting alkylating agents);  Classical pro-carcinogen DNA reactive chemicals;  Non-DNA reactive chemicals (classical non-genotoxic carcinogens);  Typically irritant chemicals or chemicals that produce local increased cell turnover.
    12. 12. Genotoxicity issuseGenotoxicity issues Site of first contact carcinogens:  Generally require no metabolism to be carcinogenic;  Generally will produce tumors at other sites if the route of administration is different  tumor location is the site of contact;  Generally only produce forestomach tumors in gavage/dietary studies because of limited/no systemic bioavailability;  Typically alkylating agents;  Typically genotoxicants in vitro and in vivo; Forestomach tumours are potentially human relevant but only at the site of first contact in humans (e.g. dermal exposures)
    13. 13. Genotoxicity issuseGenotoxicity issues Classical pro-carcinogen DNA reactive chemicals;  Generally pro-carcinogens;  Often produce tumours at more than one anatomical site following oral dosing (at least one systemic site + forestomach);  Often other routes of administration also result in tumors;  Generally systemically bioavailable; Human relevance of forestomach tumors depends on: (a) was there evidence of gastric irritation; (b) were the doses excessive (> MTD); (c) were the effects only seen with gavage dosing/diet studies and not with drinking water studies?
    14. 14. • Observation of tumours under different circumstances lends support to thesignificance of the findings for animal carcinogenicity. Significance isgenerally increased by the observation of more of the following factors: •Uncommon tumour types; •Tumours at multiple sites; •Tumours by more than one route of administration; •Tumours in multiple species, strains, or both sexes; •Progression of lesions from preneoplastic to benign to malignant; •Reduced latency of neoplastic lesions; •Metastases (malignancy, severity of histopath); •Unusual magnitude of tumour response; •Proportion of malignant tumours; •Dose-related increases; •Tumor promulgation following the cessation of exposure.
    15. 15. Benzo(a)pyrene (IARC 1)ParameterGenotoxicity in vivo that is relevant to humans +Forestomach cancers following oral dosing +Not observed in drinking water studies, only observed with gavage/diet studies -Only observed at doses that irritate the forestomach (> MTD) -Uncommon tumour types; +Tumours at multiple sites; +Tumours by more than one route of administration; +Tumours in multiple species, strains, or both sexes; +Progression of lesions from preneoplastic to benign to malignant; +Reduced latency of neoplastic lesions; +Metastases (malignancy, severity of histopath); +Unusual magnitude of tumour response; +Proportion of malignant tumours; +Dose-related increases; +Tumour promulgation following the cessation of exposure. +
    16. 16. Ethyl Acrylate•Oral gavage: dose related increases in the incidence ofsquamous-cell papillomas and carcinomas of the forestomachwere observed in rats and mice. Exposure caused gastricirritancy;•Ethyl acrylate was tested by inhalation in the same strains ofmice and rats; no treatment-related neoplastic lesions wereobserved;•No treatment-related tumour was observed following skinapplication of ethyl acrylate for lifespan to male mice.
    17. 17. Ethyl Acrylate
    18. 18. Ethyl acrylate (IARC 2B)ParameterGenotoxicity in vivo that is relevant to humans -Forestomach cancers following oral dosing +Not observed in drinking water studies, only observed with gavage/diet studies ?Only observed at doses that irritate the forestomach (> MTD) +Uncommon tumour types; -Tumours at multiple sites; -Tumours by more than one route of administration; -Tumours in multiple species, strains, or both sexes; +Progression of lesions from preneoplastic to benign to malignant; +Reduced latency of neoplastic lesions; +Metastases (malignancy, severity of histopath); -Unusual magnitude of tumour response; -Proportion of malignant tumours; -Dose-related increases; -Tumour promulgation following the cessation of exposure. +
    19. 19. Mercuric chloride (IARC 3)ParameterGenotoxicity in vivo that is relevant to humans -Forestomach cancers following oral dosing +Not observed in drinking water studies, only observed with gavage/diet ?studiesOnly observed at doses that irritate the forestomach (> MTD) +Uncommon tumour types; -Tumours at multiple sites; -Tumours by more than one route of administration; (thyroid follicular cell adenomas)Tumours in multiple species, strains, or both sexes; -Progression of lesions from preneoplastic to benign to malignant; -Reduced latency of neoplastic lesions; -Metastases (malignancy, severity of histopath); -Unusual magnitude of tumour response; -Proportion of malignant tumours; -Dose-related increases; -Tumour promulgation following the cessation of exposure. -
    20. 20. Thanks!

    ×