Mao-wen Weng, Xiaoling (Sharlene) Dai, Shaoping Wu, Jared Wilsey, Matt Lewis, Robert F. Shulfer, Marika Kamberi
{"title":"Exploration of a framework to identify cohort of concern substances in medical device risk assessment","authors":"Mao-wen Weng, Xiaoling (Sharlene) Dai, Shaoping Wu, Jared Wilsey, Matt Lewis, Robert F. Shulfer, Marika Kamberi","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2025.105976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cohort of concern substances (CoCs) present challenges in medical device toxicological risk assessment. They are excluded from the lifetime threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) per ISO/TS 21726, because their toxic dose is < 1.5 μg/day and they may present a higher cancer risk. Relying solely on structural similarities with known toxicants is inadequate for assessing carcinogenic potency. This study selected chemicals from the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) to establish a framework for identifying potential CoCs. To do that, a threshold of Cancer Risk Specific Dose (CRSD) < 0.025 μg/kg/day was initially applied. Chemicals meeting this criterion are recognized as CoCs. However, the risk assessment could be impeded by particular uncertainties, such as the inability to determine the CRSD. In such cases, the identified CoCs were further categorized based on their mutagenicity determined by the Ames test results. A scatterplot reveals a significant correlation between the carcinogenic potency [ Log(0.5/TD<sub>50</sub>)+7] and acute systemic toxicity [Log(LD<sub>50</sub>)] in the CoCs-Ames (−) group (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.72). For the CoCs-Ames (+) group (n = 124), 18 CoCs with available mutation slope data show cancer risk greater than the default risk of 1 in 100,000. This study provides a framework integrating scientific evidence and regulatory guidelines to identify potential CoCs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":"164 ","pages":"Article 105976"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230025002089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cohort of concern substances (CoCs) present challenges in medical device toxicological risk assessment. They are excluded from the lifetime threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) per ISO/TS 21726, because their toxic dose is < 1.5 μg/day and they may present a higher cancer risk. Relying solely on structural similarities with known toxicants is inadequate for assessing carcinogenic potency. This study selected chemicals from the Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) to establish a framework for identifying potential CoCs. To do that, a threshold of Cancer Risk Specific Dose (CRSD) < 0.025 μg/kg/day was initially applied. Chemicals meeting this criterion are recognized as CoCs. However, the risk assessment could be impeded by particular uncertainties, such as the inability to determine the CRSD. In such cases, the identified CoCs were further categorized based on their mutagenicity determined by the Ames test results. A scatterplot reveals a significant correlation between the carcinogenic potency [ Log(0.5/TD50)+7] and acute systemic toxicity [Log(LD50)] in the CoCs-Ames (−) group (R2 = 0.72). For the CoCs-Ames (+) group (n = 124), 18 CoCs with available mutation slope data show cancer risk greater than the default risk of 1 in 100,000. This study provides a framework integrating scientific evidence and regulatory guidelines to identify potential CoCs.
期刊介绍:
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health.
Types of peer-reviewed articles published:
-Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to:
1.Factors influencing human sensitivity
2.Exposure science related to risk assessment
3.Alternative toxicological test methods
4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations
5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies
6.Read-across methods and evaluations
-Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues
-Letters to the Editor
-Guest Editorials (by Invitation)