Exploration of a framework to identify cohort of concern substances in medical device risk assessment

IF 4.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-22 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2025.105976
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,&nbsp;Xiaoling (Sharlene) Dai,&nbsp;Shaoping Wu,&nbsp;Jared Wilsey,&nbsp;Matt Lewis,&nbsp;Robert F. Shulfer,&nbsp;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 &lt; 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) &lt; 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.
医疗器械风险评估中确定关注物质队列的框架探索。
关注物质队列(CoCs)对医疗器械毒理学风险评估提出了挑战。根据ISO/TS 21726,它们被排除在毒性关注的终生阈值(TTC)之外,因为它们的毒性剂量< 1.5 μg/天,并且它们可能具有更高的癌症风险。仅依靠与已知毒物的结构相似性不足以评估致癌效力。本研究从致癌效力数据库(CPDB)中选择化学物质,以建立鉴定潜在CoCs的框架。为了做到这一点,CoCs-Ames(-)组的癌症风险特定剂量(CRSD) 50 +7和急性全身毒性[Log(LD50)]阈值(R2 = 0.72)。对于CoCs- ames(+)组(n=124), 18个CoCs具有可用的突变斜率数据,显示癌症风险大于10万分之一的默认风险。本研究提供了一个整合科学证据和监管指南的框架,以识别潜在的CoCs。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
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)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书