2.10
SciPi 145: Peer review of the genotoxicity, toxicokinetics, and carcinogenicity of a pesticide
Six cancer bioassays (4 by oral route; 2 by inhalation) have been conducted for 1,3D with the following pattern of results: 1) 4/6 bioassays reported negative results; 2) 1 oral bioassay showed increased benign liver tumors with a P>0.01 in one sex and high dose only; and 3) 1 inhalation bioassay reported increased benign lung tumors in one sex at a high concentration (exceeding metabolic saturation). Does this pattern of tumor results affect your conclusions on the mutagenic/genotoxic potential of 1,3-D, and if so how?
Results
(3 Answers)
Answer Explanations 3
Yes
Expert 5
Yes it affects my conclusions. I think the lack of a consistent dose response and positive results nearly always only that highest dose, are not what I would expect from a genotoxic agent.
I cannot answer
Expert 14
In my opinion, genotoxicity should be thoroughly and deeply investigated with the appropriate in vitro and in vivo test batteries for hazard identification regardless of cancer bioassay information. In addition, the implication of mutations are not limited to cancer but involve genetic diseases and somatic illnesses.
Yes
Expert 1
The pattern does not speak for a genotoxic carcinogen (usually multi-tissue tunors). In line with negative result for gene mutation
Expert 3
04/20/2019 15:09It appears that the colleagues who answered Yes and No are saying the same thing. The pattern of response in the bioassays is not what might be expected with a mutagenic/genotoxic agent. While not definitive, these results can support our thinking regarding genotoxc potential when considering all of the evidence.
Expert 5
04/20/2019 17:56I agree with user 320359 [Expert 3] . I think the yes and no answers reflect different interpretations in what the question is asking.
Expert 1
04/21/2019 19:49also agree with my peers that the cancer data are supportive of a non-genotoxic mode of action, wich is why I had said 'no' in the above answer. No - it does not affect my conclusion since I, from the other overall data (although that dataset has its weaknesses), do not believe BB is a DNR reactive carcinogen.