The use of structured frameworks can be invaluable in promoting harmonization in the assessment of chemical risk. IPCS has therefore updated and extended its mode of action (MOA) framework for cancer to address the issue of human relevance of a carcinogenic response observed in an experimental study. The first stage is to determine whether it is possible to establish an MOA. This comprises a series of key events along the causal pathway to cancer, identified using a weight-of-evidence approach based on the Bradford Hill criteria. The key events are then compared first qualitatively and then quantitatively between the experimental animals and humans. Finally, a clear statement of confidence, analysis, and implications is produced. The IPCS human relevance framework for cancer provides an analytical tool to enable the transparent evaluation of the data, identification of key data gaps, and structured presentation of information that would be of value in the further risk assessment of the compound, even if relevancy cannot be excluded. This might include data on the shape of the dose-response curve, identification of any thresholds and recognition of potentially susceptible subgroups, for example, the basis of genetic or life-stage differences.

Based on existing data and previous work, a series of studies is proposed as a basis toward a pragmatic early step in transforming toxicity testing. These studies were assembled into a data-driven framework that invokes successive tiers of testing with margin of exposure (MOE) as the primary metric. The first tier of the framework integrates data from high-throughput in vitro assays, in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) pharmacokinetic modeling, and exposure modeling. The in vitro assays are used to separate chemicals based on their relative selectivity in interacting with biological targets and identify the concentration at which these interactions occur. The IVIVE modeling converts in vitro concentrations into external dose for calculation of the point of departure (POD) and comparisons to human exposure estimates to yield a MOE. The second tier involves short-term in vivo studies, expanded pharmacokinetic evaluations, and refined human exposure estimates. The results from the second tier studies provide more accurate estimates of the POD and the MOE. The third tier contains the traditional animal studies currently used to assess chemical safety. In each tier, the POD for selective chemicals is based primarily on endpoints associated with a proposed mode of action, whereas the POD for nonselective chemicals is based on potential biological perturbation. Based on the MOE, a significant percentage of chemicals evaluated in the first 2 tiers could be eliminated from further testing. The framework provides a risk-based and animal-sparing approach to evaluate chemical safety, drawing broadly from previous experience but incorporating technological advances to increase efficiency.

The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue-endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

Structured frameworks are extremely useful in promoting transparent, harmonized approaches to the risk assessment of chemicals. One area where this has been particularly successful is in the analysis of modes of action (MOAs) for chemical carcinogens in experimental animals and their relevance to humans. The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) recently published an updated version of its MOA framework in animals to address human relevance (cancer human relevance framework, or HRF). This work has now been extended to noncancer effects, with the eventual objective of harmonizing framework approaches to both cancer and noncancer endpoints. As in the cancer HRF, the first step is to determine whether the weight of evidence based on experimental observations is sufficient to establish a hypothesized MOA. This comprises a series of key events causally related to the toxic effect, identified using an approach based on the Bradford Hill criteria. These events are then compared qualitatively and, next, quantitatively between experimental animals and humans. The output of the analysis is a clear statement of conclusions, together with the confidence, analysis, and implications of the findings. This framework provides a means of ensuring a transparent evaluation of the data, identification of key data gaps and of information that would be of value in the further risk assessment of the compound, such as on dose-response relationships, and recognition of potentially susceptible subgroups, for example, based on life-stage considerations.

The World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety mode of action/human relevance framework has been updated to reflect the experience acquired in its application and extend its utility to emerging areas in toxicity testing and non-testing methods. The underlying principles have not changed, but the framework's scope has been extended to enable integration of information at different levels of biological organization and reflect evolving experience in a much broader range of potential applications. Mode of action/species concordance analysis can also inform hypothesis-based data generation and research priorities in support of risk assessment. The modified framework is incorporated within a roadmap, with feedback loops encouraging continuous refinement of fit-for-purpose testing strategies and risk assessment. Important in this construct is consideration of dose-response relationships and species concordance analysis in weight of evidence. The modified Bradford Hill considerations have been updated and additionally articulated to reflect increasing experience in application for cases where the toxicological outcome of chemical exposure is known. The modified framework can be used as originally intended, where the toxicological effects of chemical exposure are known, or in hypothesizing effects resulting from chemical exposure, using information on putative key events in established modes of action from appropriate in vitro or in silico systems and other lines of evidence. This modified mode of action framework and accompanying roadmap and case examples are expected to contribute to improving transparency in explicitly addressing weight of evidence considerations in mode of action/species concordance analysis based on both conventional data sources and evolving methods.