Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006 98(4):228-230; doi:10.1093/jnci/djj083
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2006.

NEWS

Researchers Exploring Faster Alternatives to 2-Year Test for Carcinogenicity

Charlie Schmidt

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

For nearly 40 years, scientists have relied on a costly, time-consuming test called the 2-year bioassay to screen chemicals for carcinogenicity. This assay exposes mice and rats of both sexes to a given substance at the maximum tolerated dose (and one or two lower doses) for the animal's lifetime—about 2 years. Chemicals that produce more tumors in test animals than control subjects are flagged as carcinogens, and this designation triggers regulatory measures to set human exposure limits with the goal of protecting the public's health.

Health agencies in the United States and abroad view the 2-year bioassay as a "gold standard" for carcinogen identification. Most human carcinogens listed by the Environmental Protection Agency in its Integrated Risk Information System were first identified with the assay, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires it in premarket studies of drugs destined for long-term clinical use.

But despite its entrenched regulatory role, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Still Useful?

An Alternative

High-Throughput Advances


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?