While regulatory requirements for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals vary according to product sector and regulatory jurisdiction, the standard approach starts with a battery of genotoxicity tests (which include mutagenicity assays). If any of the in vivo genotoxicity tests are positive, a lifetime rodent cancer bioassay may be requested, but under most chemical regulations (except plant protection, biocides, pharmaceuticals), this is rare. The decision to conduct further testing based on genotoxicity test outcomes creates a regulatory gap for the identification of non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTxC). With the objective of addressing this gap, in 2016, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established an expert group to develop an integrated approach to the testing and assessment (IATA) of NGTxC. Through that work, a definition of NGTxC in a regulatory context was agreed. Using the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, various cancer models were developed, and overarching mechanisms and modes of action were identified. After further refining and structuring with respect to the common hallmarks of cancer and knowing that NGTxC act through a large variety of specific mechanisms, with cell proliferation commonly being a unifying element, it became evident that a panel of tests covering multiple biological traits will be needed to populate the IATA. Consequently, in addition to literature and database investigation, the OECD opened a call for relevant assays in 2018 to receive suggestions. Here, we report on the definition of NGTxC, on the development of the overarching NGTxC IATA, and on the development of ranking parameters to evaluate the assays. Ultimately the intent is to select the best scoring assays for integration in an NGTxC IATA to better identify carcinogens and reduce public health hazards.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are considered to include any in vitro, in silico or chemistry-based method, as well as the strategies to implement them, that may provide information that could inform chemical safety assessment. Current chemical legislation in the European Union is limited in its acceptance of the widespread use of NAMs. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) therefore convened a 'Deep Dive Workshop' to explore the use of NAMs in chemical safety assessment, the aim of which was to support regulatory decisions, whilst intending to protect human health. The workshop recognised that NAMs are currently used in many industrial sectors, with some considered as fit for regulatory purpose. Moreover, the workshop identified key discussion points that can be addressed to increase the use and regulatory acceptance of NAMs. These are based on the changes needed in frameworks for regulatory requirements and the essential needs in education, training and greater stakeholder engagement as well the gaps in the scientific basis of NAMs.

The assessment of genotoxicity represents an essential component of the safety assessment of all types of substances. Several in vitro tests are available at different stages of development and acceptance, yet they are not considered at present sufficient to fully replace animal tests needed to evaluate the safety of substances. For an overall improvement of the traditional genotoxicity testing paradigm, several recent activities have taken place. These include the improvement of existing tests, the development of novel tests, as well as, the establishment and exploration of approaches to optimise in vitro testing accuracy. Furthermore, useful tools, such as databases or reference chemical lists have been developed to support advances in this field.

Cancer is a key public health concern, being the second leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality after cardiovascular diseases. At the global level, cancer prevalence, incidence and mortality rates are increasing. These trends are not fully explained by a growing and ageing population: with marked regional and socioeconomic disparities, lifestyle factors, the resources dedicated to preventive medicine, and the occupational and environmental control of hazardous chemicals all playing a role. While it is difficult to establish the contribution of chemical exposure to the societal burden of cancer, a number of measures can be taken to better assess the carcinogenic properties of chemicals and manage their risks. This paper discusses how these measures can be informed not only by the traditional data streams of regulatory toxicology, but also by using new toxicological assessment methods, along with indicators of public health status based on biomonitoring. These diverse evidence streams have the potential to form the basis of an integrated and more effective approach to cancer prevention.

A Workshop sponsored by EURL ECVAM was held in Ispra, Italy in 2013 to consider whether the in vitro mammalian cell genotoxicity test results could complement and mitigate the implications of a positive Ames test response for the prediction of in vivo genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, and if patterns of results could be identified. Databases of Ames-positive chemicals that were tested for in vivo genotoxicity and/or carcinogenicity were collected from different sources and analysed individually (Kirkland et al., in this issue). Because there were overlaps and inconsistent test results among chemicals in the different databases, a combined database which eliminated the overlaps and evaluated the inconsistencies was considered preferable for addressing the above question. A database of >700 Ames-positive chemicals also tested in vivo was compiled, and the results in in vitro mammalian cell tests were analysed. Because the database was limited to Ames-positive chemicals, the majority (>85%) of carcinogens (103/119) and in vivo genotoxins (83/88) were positive when tested in both in vitro gene mutation and aneugenicity/clastogenicity tests. However, about half (>45%) of chemicals that were not carcinogenic (19/28) or genotoxic in vivo (33/73) also gave the same patterns of positive mammalian cell results. Although the different frequencies were statistically significant, positive results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests did not, per se, add to the predictivity of the positive Ames test. By contrast, negative results for both in vitro mammalian cell endpoints were rare for Ames-positive carcinogens (3/119) and in vivo genotoxins (2/88) but, were significantly more frequent for Ames-positive chemicals that are not carcinogenic (4/28) or genotoxic in vivo (14/73). Thus, in the case of an Ames-positive chemical, negative results in 2 in vitro mammalian cell tests covering both mutation and clastogenicity/aneugenicity endpoints should be considered as indicative of absence of in vivo genotoxic or carcinogenic potential.

The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.