Abstract
The interpretation of animal carcinogenicity tests traditionally rely almost exclusively upon a comparison of specific tumor rates in treated vs. matched and, perhaps, historical control animals. Yet, carcinogenicity tests yield much more biological and pathological data than simply final tumor rates. This additional data should also be considered as part of the total weight of evidence, particularly when analyzing a marginal or equivocal test result. If there are no positive findings among the data discussed here and listed in Table 1, it is unlikely that a marginal or equivocal increase in tumor incidence is actually treatment-related, irrespective of statistical analysis.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
