2,924
Views
34
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review Articles

The legacy of the F344 rat as a cancer bioassay model (a retrospective summary of three common F344 rat neoplasms)

, , &
Pages 641-675 | Received 24 Dec 2015, Accepted 01 Apr 2016, Published online: 09 Jun 2016

Figures & data

Figure 1. Comparison in male rats of distribution of background incidence for high incidence MNCL and LCTs versus Liver tumor incidence in (A) feeding studies and (B) Chamber studies. MNCLs have both a high incidence and wide distribution in comparison to the other tumor types which makes it difficult to determine if differences between treatment and control are treatment related or due to random chance. The difference in background incidence levels for LCTs in feeding studies (A) and chamber studies (B) maybe explains why five out of the seven NTP studies identified as having increased LCT incidence were inhalation studies. Possible biological reasons for the differences in background incidence are discussed in the text.

Figure 1. Comparison in male rats of distribution of background incidence for high incidence MNCL and LCTs versus Liver tumor incidence in (A) feeding studies and (B) Chamber studies. MNCLs have both a high incidence and wide distribution in comparison to the other tumor types which makes it difficult to determine if differences between treatment and control are treatment related or due to random chance. The difference in background incidence levels for LCTs in feeding studies (A) and chamber studies (B) maybe explains why five out of the seven NTP studies identified as having increased LCT incidence were inhalation studies. Possible biological reasons for the differences in background incidence are discussed in the text.

Figure 2. Highly variable and unpredictable nature of the MNCL background tumor incidence. Background incidence in Haseman at al., 1998 was separated by sex and study type. As can be seen above there are relatively large differences in background incidence for MNCL between sexes as well as between exposure methods (A). Contrast this with the effect sex and exposure type has on liver tumor incidence (B). Other factors that affect background incidence of MNCL are discussed in the text.

Figure 2. Highly variable and unpredictable nature of the MNCL background tumor incidence. Background incidence in Haseman at al., 1998 was separated by sex and study type. As can be seen above there are relatively large differences in background incidence for MNCL between sexes as well as between exposure methods (A). Contrast this with the effect sex and exposure type has on liver tumor incidence (B). Other factors that affect background incidence of MNCL are discussed in the text.

Table 1. Variables, factors and events influencing the incidence of MNCL in F344 rats.

Table 2. Decreased frequency of MNCL in NTP studies.

Table 3. Male and female F344 rat MNCL responses in NTP studies.

Table 4. NCI/NTP F344 rat studies with a positive leukemia response started and evaluated prior to introduction of NTP levels of evidence of carcinogenicity.

Table 5. NTP studies where at least one sex had MNCL classified as clear evidence of carcinogenicity.

Table 6. NTP studies where at least one sex had MNCL classified as some evidence of carcinogenicity.

Table 7. Occurrence of MNCL in NTP studies with at least one sex classified as equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity.

Table 8. NTP studies that had a Leydig cell tumor response.

Table 9. NTP studies that had a tunica vaginalis mesothelioma (TVM) response.

Supplemental material

Supplemental_Content.zip

Download Zip (299.2 KB)