Code |
Author’s Opinion for Each Site |
+ |
Author in general literature evaluated the site as
positive. |
– |
In the general literature author evaluated the site as
negative. For NCI bioassays the opinion “not
carcinogenic” and for NTP the evaluation is “no
evidence of carcinogenic activity”, i.e. “studies that
are interpreted as showing no chemically related increases in
malignant or benign neoplasms.” |
blank |
For NCI/NTP and general literature: a site for which no opinion
is stated. |
a |
For NCI Technical Reports the “a” opinion
corresponds to an evaluation that tumors were
“associated” with compound administration. The
“a” opinion generally corresponds to an NTP-reassigned
level of “equivocal” for these NCI bioassays. |
c |
The NCI evaluation is “carcinogenic” or the NTP
evaluation is “clear evidence of carcinogenic
activity”, i.e. “studies that are interpreted as
showing a dose-related (i) increase of malignant neoplasms, (ii)
increase of a combination of malignant and benign neoplasms, or
(iii) marked increase of benign neoplasms if there is an indication
from this or other studies of the ability of such tumors to
progress to malignancy.” |
e |
NTP evaluation is “equivocal evidence of carcinogenic
activity”, i.e. “studies that are interpreted as
showing a marginal increase of neoplasms that may be chemically
related.” |
p |
NTP evaluation is “some evidence of carcinogenic
activity”, i.e. “studies that are interpreted as
showing a chemically related increased incidence of neoplasms
(malignant, benign, or combined) in which the strength of the
response is less than that required for clear evidence.” |
i |
NTP evaluation is inadequate, i.e. “studies that, because
of major qualitative or quantitative limitations, cannot be
interpreted as valid for showing either the presence or absence of
carcinogenic activity.” |