272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32133908)
1. Hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment of carcinogens: too much or too little? - Report of an ECETOC workshop.
Felter SP; Boobis AR; Botham PA; Brousse A; Greim H; Hollnagel HM; Sauer UG
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2020 Jan; 50(1):72-95. PubMed ID: 32133908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?
Braakhuis HM; Slob W; Olthof ED; Wolterink G; Zwart EP; Gremmer ER; Rorije E; van Benthem J; Woutersen R; van der Laan JW; Luijten M
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2018 Jul; 48(6):500-511. PubMed ID: 29745287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Guidelines for the evaluation of chemicals for carcinogenicity. Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.
Rep Health Soc Subj (Lond); 1991; 42():1-80. PubMed ID: 1763238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Carcinogenicity categorization of chemicals-new aspects to be considered in a European perspective.
Bolt HM; Foth H; Hengstler JG; Degen GH
Toxicol Lett; 2004 Jun; 151(1):29-41. PubMed ID: 15177638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Scientific analysis of the proposed uses of the T25 dose descriptor in chemical carcinogen regulation.
Roberts RA; Crump KS; Lutz WK; Wiegand HJ; Williams GM; Harrison PT; Purchase IF
Arch Toxicol; 2001 Nov; 75(9):507-12. PubMed ID: 11760810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. An integrative test strategy for cancer hazard identification.
Luijten M; Olthof ED; Hakkert BC; Rorije E; van der Laan JW; Woutersen RA; van Benthem J
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2016 Aug; 46(7):615-39. PubMed ID: 27142259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of the utility of the lifetime mouse bioassay in the identification of cancer hazards for humans.
Osimitz TG; Droege W; Boobis AR; Lake BG
Food Chem Toxicol; 2013 Oct; 60():550-62. PubMed ID: 23954551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. ECETOC Florence workshop on risk assessment of endocrine substances, including the potency concept.
Fegert I
Toxicol Lett; 2013 Dec; 223(3):310-4. PubMed ID: 23558296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Towards a mechanism-based approach for the prediction of nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals.
Heusinkveld H; Braakhuis H; Gommans R; Botham P; Corvaro M; van der Laan JW; Lewis D; Madia F; Manou I; Schorsch F; Wolterink G; Woutersen R; Corvi R; Mehta J; Luijten M
Crit Rev Toxicol; 2020 Oct; 50(9):725-739. PubMed ID: 33236972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. International regulatory needs for development of an IATA for non-genotoxic carcinogenic chemical substances.
Jacobs MN; Colacci A; Louekari K; Luijten M; Hakkert BC; Paparella M; Vasseur P
ALTEX; 2016; 33(4):359-392. PubMed ID: 27120445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mode of action-based risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens.
Hartwig A; Arand M; Epe B; Guth S; Jahnke G; Lampen A; Martus HJ; Monien B; Rietjens IMCM; Schmitz-Spanke S; Schriever-Schwemmer G; Steinberg P; Eisenbrand G
Arch Toxicol; 2020 Jun; 94(6):1787-1877. PubMed ID: 32542409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Neonatal mouse model: review of methods and results.
McClain RM; Keller D; Casciano D; Fu P; MacDonald J; Popp J; Sagartz J
Toxicol Pathol; 2001; 29 Suppl():128-37. PubMed ID: 11695548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How well can in vitro data predict in vivo effects of chemicals? Rodent carcinogenicity as a case study.
Anthony Tony Cox L; Popken DA; Kaplan AM; Plunkett LM; Becker RA
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Jun; 77():54-64. PubMed ID: 26879462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Tg rasH2 mouse in cancer hazard identification.
Morton D; Alden CL; Roth AJ; Usui T
Toxicol Pathol; 2002; 30(1):139-46. PubMed ID: 11890467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society.
Boobis AR; Cohen SM; Dellarco VL; Doe JE; Fenner-Crisp PA; Moretto A; Pastoor TP; Schoeny RS; Seed JG; Wolf DC
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2016 Dec; 82():158-166. PubMed ID: 27780763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Integrated approach to testing and assessment for predicting rodent genotoxic carcinogenicity.
Petkov PI; Schultz TW; Donner EM; Honma M; Morita T; Hamada S; Wakata A; Mishima M; Maniwa J; Todorov M; Kaloyanova E; Kotov S; Mekenyan OG
J Appl Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 36(12):1536-1550. PubMed ID: 27225589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In Vitro-In Vivo Carcinogenicity.
Steinberg P
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol; 2017; 157():81-96. PubMed ID: 27506831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
