BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9783998)

  • 1. A brief history of the use of laboratory animals for the prediction of carcinogenic risk for man with a note on needs for the future.
    Roe FJ
    Exp Toxicol Pathol; 1998 Sep; 50(4-6):271-6. PubMed ID: 9783998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A review of current toxicological concerns on vanadium pentoxide and other vanadium compounds: gaps in knowledge and directions for future research.
    Assem FL; Levy LS
    J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev; 2009 Apr; 12(4):289-306. PubMed ID: 20183524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Historical perspective on the use of animal bioassays to predict carcinogenicity: evolution in design and recognition of utility.
    Beyer LA; Beck BD; Lewandowski TA
    Crit Rev Toxicol; 2011 Apr; 41(4):321-38. PubMed ID: 21438739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Failure of the standard battery of short-term tests in detecting some rodent and human genotoxic carcinogens.
    Brambilla G; Martelli A
    Toxicology; 2004 Mar; 196(1-2):1-19. PubMed ID: 15036752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Genotoxic and carcinogenic effects of gastrointestinal drugs.
    Brambilla G; Mattioli F; Martelli A
    Mutagenesis; 2010 Jul; 25(4):315-26. PubMed ID: 20478972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Carcinogenic mechanisms and anticarcinogenesis].
    Kavetskiĭ RE
    Vopr Onkol; 2005; 51(6):632-5. PubMed ID: 17037026
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Pollution, carcinogenesis and cancer prevention.
    Ramel C
    Acta Oncol; 1991; 30(6 Spec No):27-33. PubMed ID: 1910870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity.
    Kirkland D; Aardema M; Henderson L; Müller L
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jul; 584(1-2):1-256. PubMed ID: 15979392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Chemical carcinogenesis.
    Cohen SM; Arnold LL
    Toxicol Sci; 2011 Mar; 120 Suppl 1():S76-92. PubMed ID: 21147961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Carcinogenic potency and interspecies extrapolation.
    Krewski D; Goddard MJ; Withey JR
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1990; 340D():323-34. PubMed ID: 2196582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mechanisms of nongenotoxic carcinogenesis and assessment of the human hazard.
    Silva Lima B; Van der Laan JW
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2000 Oct; 32(2):135-43. PubMed ID: 11067770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Epidemiological and experimental applications to occupational cancer prevention.
    Vainio H; Hemminki K
    J UOEH; 1989 Mar; 11 Suppl():323-45. PubMed ID: 2664947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. In vitro genotoxicity data of nanomaterials compared to carcinogenic potency of inorganic substances after inhalational exposure.
    Roller M
    Mutat Res; 2011; 727(3):72-85. PubMed ID: 21458593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The influence of thresholds on the risk assessment of carcinogens in food.
    Pratt I; Barlow S; Kleiner J; Larsen JC
    Mutat Res; 2009 Aug; 678(2):113-7. PubMed ID: 19442758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Prediction of carcinogenicity from two versus four sex-species groups in the carcinogenic potency database.
    Gold LS; Slone TH
    J Toxicol Environ Health; 1993 May; 39(1):143-57. PubMed ID: 8492327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Predictive models for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: frameworks, state-of-the-art, and perspectives.
    Benfenati E; Benigni R; Demarini DM; Helma C; Kirkland D; Martin TM; Mazzatorta P; Ouédraogo-Arras G; Richard AM; Schilter B; Schoonen WG; Snyder RD; Yang C
    J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev; 2009 Apr; 27(2):57-90. PubMed ID: 19412856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Approaches to the risk assessment of genotoxic carcinogens in food: a critical appraisal.
    O'Brien J; Renwick AG; Constable A; Dybing E; Müller DJ; Schlatter J; Slob W; Tueting W; van Benthem J; Williams GM; Wolfreys A
    Food Chem Toxicol; 2006 Oct; 44(10):1613-35. PubMed ID: 16887251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.