229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28911985)
1. Moving forward in carcinogenicity assessment: Report of an EURL ECVAM/ESTIV workshop.
Corvi R; Madia F; Guyton KZ; Kasper P; Rudel R; Colacci A; Kleinjans J; Jennings P
Toxicol In Vitro; 2017 Dec; 45(Pt 3):278-286. PubMed ID: 28911985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Expectations for transgenic rodent cancer bioassay models.
Ashby J
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():177-82. PubMed ID: 11695555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A perspective on current and future uses of alternative models for carcinogenicity testing.
Goodman JI
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():173-6. PubMed ID: 11695554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Opportunities for an alternative integrating testing strategy for carcinogen hazard assessment?
Doktorova TY; Pauwels M; Vinken M; Vanhaecke T; Rogiers V
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2012 Feb; 42(2):91-106. PubMed ID: 22141324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Application of toxicogenomics to study mechanisms of genotoxicity and carcinogenicity.
Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Aubrecht J; Kleinjans JC; Ahr HJ
Toxicol Lett; 2009 Apr; 186(1):36-44. PubMed ID: 18822359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessing chemical carcinogenicity: hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment. Insight from a Toxicology Forum state-of-the-science workshop.
Felter SP; Bhat VS; Botham PA; Bussard DA; Casey W; Hayes AW; Hilton GM; Magurany KA; Sauer UG; Ohanian EV
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2021 Sep; 51(8):653-694. PubMed ID: 35239444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mouse-specific carcinogens: an assessment of hazard and significance for validation of short-term carcinogenicity bioassays in transgenic mice.
Battershill JM; Fielder RJ
Hum Exp Toxicol; 1998 Apr; 17(4):193-205. PubMed ID: 9617631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing compound carcinogenicity in vitro using connectivity mapping.
Caiment F; Tsamou M; Jennen D; Kleinjans J
Carcinogenesis; 2014 Jan; 35(1):201-7. PubMed ID: 23940306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database.
Madia F; Kirkland D; Morita T; White P; Asturiol D; Corvi R
Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen; 2020; 854-855():503199. PubMed ID: 32660827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evolution of the uses of rats and mice for assessing carcinogenic risk from chemicals in humans.
Ward JM
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2010; 11(1):18. PubMed ID: 20593921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Characterizing and predicting carcinogenicity and mode of action using conventional and toxicogenomics methods.
Waters MD; Jackson M; Lea I
Mutat Res; 2010 Dec; 705(3):184-200. PubMed ID: 20399889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. NTP workshop: animal models for the NTP rodent cancer bioassay: stocks and strains--should we switch?
King-Herbert A; Thayer K
Toxicol Pathol; 2006; 34(6):802-5. PubMed ID: 17162538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A cross-sector call to improve carcinogenicity risk assessment through use of genomic methodologies.
Yauk CL; Harrill AH; Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; van der Laan JW; Moggs J; Froetschl R; Sistare F; Pettit S
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2020 Feb; 110():104526. PubMed ID: 31726190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The 2-year rodent bioassay in drug and chemical carcinogenicity testing: Performance, utility, and configuration for cancer hazard identification.
Suarez-Torres JD; Orozco CA; Ciangherotti CE
J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods; 2021; 110():107070. PubMed ID: 33905862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Genomic models of short-term exposure accurately predict long-term chemical carcinogenicity and identify putative mechanisms of action.
Gusenleitner D; Auerbach SS; Melia T; Gómez HF; Sherr DH; Monti S
PLoS One; 2014; 9(7):e102579. PubMed ID: 25058030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Review of alternative methods of carcinogenicity testing and evaluation of human pharmaceuticals.
Van Deun K; Van Cauteren H; Vandenberghe J; Canning M; Vanparys P; Coussement W
Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev; 1997 Nov; 16(4):215-33. PubMed ID: 9608857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Panel discussion on the application of alternative models to cancer risk assessment.
Pettit SD
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():191-5. PubMed ID: 11695557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of toxicogenomics approaches for assessing the risk of nongenotoxic carcinogenicity in rat liver.
Eichner J; Wrzodek C; Römer M; Ellinger-Ziegelbauer H; Zell A
PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e97678. PubMed ID: 24828355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens?
Gaylor DW
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2005 Mar; 41(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 15698536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative analysis of predictive models for nongenotoxic hepatocarcinogenicity using both toxicogenomics and quantitative structure-activity relationships.
Liu Z; Kelly R; Fang H; Ding D; Tong W
Chem Res Toxicol; 2011 Jul; 24(7):1062-70. PubMed ID: 21627106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
