The aim of carcinogenicity studies is to identify carcinogenic potential, properties, or hazards of a chemical. On these types of studies, statisticians and pathologists work closely together as the microscopic findings are routinely statistically analyzed. The areas of interest to both groups include the classification of tumors as fatal or non-fatal, tumor combinations, and the interpretation of the results. These topics are among those discussed within this paper.
AldenCLLynnABourdeauA, et al. A critical review of the effectiveness of rodent pharmaceutical carcinogenesis testing in predicting for human risk. Vet Pathol. 2011;48(3):772-784. doi:10.1177/0300985811400445.
2.
BailerAJPortierCJ.Effects of treatment induced mortality and tumor-induced mortality on tests for carcinogenicity in small samples. Biometrics. 1988;44:417-431.
3.
BaldrickP.Carcinogenicity evaluation: comparison of tumor data from dual control groups in the Sprague–Dawley rat. Toxicol Pathol. 2005;33(2):283-291. doi:10.1080/019262390908371.
4.
BolonBCaverly RaeJColmanK, et al. Opinion on current use of non-blinded versus blinded histopathologic evaluation in animal toxicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2020;48(4):549-559. doi:10.1177/0192623320920590.
5.
BreslowN.A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika. 1970;57(3):579-594.
6.
BrixAEHardistyJFMcConnellEE. Combining neoplasms for evaluation of rodent carcinogenesis studies. In: HsuC-HStedefordT, eds. Cancer Risk Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2010:699-715.
EttlinRAStirnimannPPrenticeDE.Causes of death in rodent toxicity and carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 1994;22(2):165-178. doi:10.1177/019262339402200210.
FDA. Pathology peer review in nonclinical toxicology studies: questions and answers. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2021. Accessed January 27, 2026. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-28051.
17.
FestingMFWAltmanDG.Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. ILAR J. 2002;43(4):244-258. doi:10.1093/ilar.43.4.244.
18.
FrenchJLIbrahimJG.Bayesian methods for a three-state model for rodent carcinogenicity studies. Biometrics. 2002;58(4):906-916. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00906.x.
19.
GehanEA.A generalized Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored samples. Biometrika. 1965;52(1/2):203-223.
20.
GosselinRD.Guidelines on statistics for researchers using laboratory animals: the essentials. Lab Anim. 2019;53(1):28-42. doi:10.1177/0023677218783223.
21.
GottmannEKramerSPfahringerBHelmaC.Data quality in predictive toxicology: reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(5):509-514. doi:10.1289/ehp.01109509.
22.
GrevotABoisclairJGuffroyM, et al. Toxicologic pathology forum opinion piece: use of virtual control groups in nonclinical toxicity studies: the anatomic pathology perspective. Toxicol Pathol. 2024;51:390-396. doi:10.1177/01926233231224805.
23.
HaschekWRousseauxCWalligM. Haschek and Rousseaux’s Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology. 3rd ed.London: Academic Press; 2013:820.
24.
HasemanJK.Statistical issues in the design, analysis and interpretation of animal carcinogenicity studies. Environ Health Perspect. 1984;58:385-392. doi:10.1289/ehp.8458385.
25.
HollandTHollandC.Unbiased histological examinations in toxicological experiments (or, the informed leading the blinded examination). Toxicol Pathol. 2011;39(4):711-714. doi:10.1177/0192623311406288.
26.
HowroydP.Carcinogenicity. In: SteinbachTPatrickDCosenzaM, eds. Toxicologic Pathology for Non-pathologists. New York: Humana; 2019:745-778. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9777-0_18.
KarpNAPearlEJStringerEJBarkusCUlrichsenJCPercieduSertN.A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(11):e3001873. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001873.
32.
KeenanCAl-HaddawiMBienvenuJ-G, et al. Guide for combining primary tumors for statistical analysis in rodent carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2024;52(1):13-20. doi:10.1177/01926233241230553.
33.
KodellRL.Should we assess tumorigenicity with the peto or poly-k test?Stat Biopharm Res. 2012;4(2):118-124. doi:10.1198/sbr.2010.10030.
34.
LazicSEClarke-WilliamsCJMunafòMR.What exactly is “N” in cell culture and animal experiments?PLoS Biol. 2018;16(4):e2005282. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2005282.
35.
LeePFryJ.Statistical methods for carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2002;30(3):403-414.
36.
LiTTongWRobertsRLiuZThakkarS.DeepCarc: deep learning-powered carcinogenicity prediction using model-level representation. Front Artif Intell. 2021;18(4):757780. doi:10.3389/frai.2021.757780.
37.
LinKRahmanM.Comparisons of false negative rates from a trend test alone and from a trend test jointly with a control-high groups pairwise test in the determination of the carcinogenicity of new drugs. J Biopharm Stat. 2019;29(1):128-142. doi:10.1080/10543406.2018.1473874.
38.
LinKKRahmanMA. Expanded statistical decision rules for interpretations of results of rodent carcinogenicity studies of pharmaceuticals. In: PeaceKChenDGMenonS, eds. Biopharmaceutical Applied Statistics Symposium. ICSA Book Series in Statistics. Singapore: Springer; 2018:151-183. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7820-0_8.
39.
Louis-MaertenERodriguezPCCajigaRMPerssonKElgerBS.Conceptual foundations for a clarified meaning of the 3Rs principles in animal experimentation. Anim Welf. 2024;33:e37. doi:10.1017/awf.2024.39.
40.
MantelN.Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemotherapy Rep. 1967;50:163-170.
41.
ManuppelloJSlankster-SchmiererEBakerESullivanK.Animal use and opportunities for reduction in carcinogenicity studies supporting approved new drug applications in the U.S., 2015–2019. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023;137:105289. doi:10.1016/105289.
42.
MartinezRLMCNaranjoJD. A pretest for choosing between logrank and Wilcoxon tests in the two-sample problem. METRON. 2010;68:111-125. doi:10.1007/BF03263529.
43.
MataDAMilnerDAJr.Statistical methods in experimental pathology: a review and primer. Am J Pathol. 2021;191(5):784-794. doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2021.02.009.
44.
McConnellEEEustisSL.Peer review in carcinogenicity bioassays: uses/abuses. Toxicol Pathol. 1994;22(2):141-144. doi:10.1177/019262339402200207.
45.
McConnellEESolleveldHASwenbergJA, et al. Guidelines for combining neoplasms for evaluation of rodent carcinogenesis studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;76(2):283289.
46.
McInnesEFErnstHGermannP-G.Spontaneous neoplastic lesions in control Syrian hamsters in 6-, 12-, and 24-month short-term and carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2013;41(1):86-97.
47.
MelnickRLThayerKABucherJR. Conflicting views on chemical carcinogenesis arising from the design and evaluation of rodent carcinogenicity studies. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(1):130-135. doi:10.1289/ehp.998.
48.
MittalAAhujaG.Advancing chemical carcinogenicity prediction modeling: opportunities and challenges. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2023;44(7):400-410. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2023.04.002.
49.
MonaghanTFAgudeloCWRahmanSN, et al. Blinding in clinical trials: seeing the big picture. Medicina. 2021;57(7):647. doi:10.3390/medicina57070647.
50.
MortonDSellersRSBarale-ThomasE, et al. Recommendations for pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol. 2010;38(7):1118-1127. doi:10.1177/0192623310383991.
NeefNNikulaKJFrancke-CarrollSBooneL.Regulatory forum opinion piece: blind reading of histopathology slides in general toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2012;40(4):697-699. doi:10.1177/0192623312438737.
54.
OECD. Guidance Document 116 on the Conduct and Design of Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies, Supporting Test Guidelines 451, 452 and 453. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014. Accessed January 27, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264221475-en.
55.
OECD. Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015. Accessed January 27, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264228306-en.
PetoRPikeMCDayNE, et al. Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Hum Suppl. 1980;(2 Suppl):311-426.
59.
RahmanMTiwariR.Pairwise comparisons in the analysis of carcinogenicity data. Health. 2012;4:910-918. doi:10.4236/health.2012.410139.
60.
RothAKadyszewskieEGeffrayBPaulissenJWeaverRJ.Excess mortality in two-year rodent carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2007;35:1040-1043.
61.
RudmannDAlbretsenJDoolanC, et al. Using deep learning artificial intelligence algorithms to verify N-nitroso-N-methylurea and urethane positive control proliferative changes in Tg-RasH2 mouse carcinogenicity studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2021;49(4):938-949. doi:10.1177/0192623320973986.
62.
SaulJAshcroft-HawleyK.Discussion on statistical analysis of carcinogenicity studies with an early terminated treated group. Pharm Stat. 2019;19(3):326-334. doi:10.1002/pst.1994.
63.
ShockleyKRKisslingGE.Statistical guidance for reviewers of toxicologic pathology. Toxicol Pathol. 2018;46(6):647-652. doi:10.1177/0192623318785097.
64.
SillsRCCestaMFWillsonCJBrixAEBerridgeBR.National toxicology program position statement on informed (“Nonblinded”) analysis in toxicologic pathology evaluation. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47(7):887-890. doi:10.1177/0192623319873974.
65.
Steger-HartmannTKreuchwigAVaasL, et al. Introducing the concept of virtual control groups into preclinical toxicology testing. ALTEX. 2020;37(3):343-349. doi:10.14573/altex.2001311.
66.
TiceRRBassanAAmbergA, et al. In silico approaches in carcinogenicity hazard assessment: current status and future needs. Comput Toxicol. 2021;20:100191. doi:10.1016/j.comtox.2021.100191.
67.
ValentineHDaugherityEKSinghBMaurerKJ. The Experimental Use of Syrian Hamsters. In: SuckowMAStevensKAWilsonRP, eds. The Laboratory Rabbit, Guinea Pig, Hamster, and Other Rodents. London: Academic Press; 2012:875-906. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-380920-9.00034-1.
68.
VredenburghAZackowitzI.Drug labeling and its impact on patient safety. Work. 2009;33:169-174. doi:10.3233/WOR-2009-0863.
69.
WassersteinRL.The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am Stat. 2016;70(2):129-133. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.
WrightPSRSmithGFKatharineABriggsKA, et al. Retrospective analysis of the potential use of virtual control groups in preclinical toxicity assessment using the eTOX database. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023;138:105309. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105309.
72.
ZhangHCaoZ-XLiMLiY-ZPengC.Novel naïve Bayes classification models for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals. Food Chem Toxicol. 2016;97:141-149. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2016.09.005.
73.
ZhangLAiHChenW, et al. CarcinoPred-EL: novel models for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals using molecular fingerprints and ensemble learning methods. Sci Rep. 2017;7:2118. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02365-0.
