Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Feb;133(2):25001.
doi: 10.1289/EHP15389. Epub 2025 Feb 3.

IARC Workshop on the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Assessment of End Points for Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence of Carcinogenic Hazards

Affiliations

IARC Workshop on the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Assessment of End Points for Evaluating Mechanistic Evidence of Carcinogenic Hazards

David M DeMarini et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Background: The 10 key characteristics (KCs) of carcinogens form the basis of a framework to identify, organize, and evaluate mechanistic evidence relevant to carcinogenic hazard identification. The 10 KCs are related to mechanisms by which carcinogens cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs programme has successfully applied the KCs framework for the mechanistic evaluation of different types of exposures, including chemicals, metals, and complex exposures, such as environmental, occupational, or dietary exposures. The use of this framework has significantly enhanced the identification and organization of relevant mechanistic data, minimized bias in evaluations, and enriched the knowledge base regarding the mechanisms of known and suspected carcinogens.

Objectives: We sought to report the main outcomes of an IARC Scientific Workshop convened by the IARC to establish appropriate, transparent, and uniform application of the KCs in future IARC Monographs evaluations.

Methods: A group of experts from different disciplines reviewed the IARC Monographs experience with the KCs of carcinogens, discussing three main themes: a) the interpretation of end points forming the evidence base for the KCs, b) the incorporation of data from novel assays on the KCs, and c) the integration of the mechanistic evidence as part of cancer hazard identification. The workshop participants assessed the relevance and the informativeness of multiple KCs-associated end points for the evaluation of mechanistic evidence in studies of exposed humans and experimental systems.

Discussion: Consensus was reached on how to enhance the use of in silico, molecular, and cellular high-output and high-throughput data. In addition, approaches to integrate evidence across the KCs and opportunities to improve methodologies of mechanistic evaluation of cancer hazards were explored. The findings described herein and in a forthcoming IARC technical report will support future working groups of experts in reporting and interpreting results under the KCs framework within the IARC Monographs or in other contexts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15389.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1A is a box and whiskers plot, plotting Average number of key characteristics per agent, ranging from 0 to 10 in unit increments (y-axis) across evidence (x-axis). Figure 1B is bar graph, plotting Agents with Consistent and Coherent evidence per key characteristics (percentage), ranging from 0 to 100 in increments of 10 (y-axis) across key characteristics, ranging from 1 to 10 in unit increments (x-axis). Figure 1C is a heatmap, plotting agents with strong mechanistic evidence and classified as IARC Group 1, Group 2A, or Group 2B. According to the current IARC Monographs Preamble,3 the mechanistic evidence is considered strong if results in several different experimental systems are consistent and the overall mechanistic database is coherent. Each column represents one agent evaluated with strong mechanistic evidence. Each line represents the test system of the mechanistic evidence evaluated as consistent and coherent. Figure 1D is a horizontal stacked bar graph, plotting the percentage of agents with consistent and coherent evidence per test system across the 10 key characteristics of carcinogens: KC1, KC2, KC3, KC4, KC5, KC6, KC7, KC8, KC9, KC10 (y-axis) across Agents with consistent and coherent evidence per test system (percentage), ranging from 0 to 100 in increments of 20 (x-axis) for Exposed humans, Human primary cells or tissues, and Experimental systems.
Figure 1.
Comprehensive analysis of the key characteristics of carcinogens for agents with strong mechanistic evidence evaluated since IARC Monographs volume 112. (A) Average number of KCs with consistent and coherent evidence per agent (X represents the mean, and whiskers the range). (B) Percentage of agents with consistent and coherent evidence per KC. (C) Agents with strong mechanistic evidence. According to the current IARC Monographs Preamble, the mechanistic evidence is considered strong if results in several different experimental systems are consistent and the overall mechanistic database is coherent. Each column represents one agent evaluated with strong mechanistic evidence. Each line represents the test system of the mechanistic evidence evaluated as consistent and coherent. (D) Percentage of agents with consistent and coherent evidence per test system. Agents with consistent and coherent mechanistic evidence in exposed humans or mechanistic evidence likely to be operative in humans: dark blue background. Agents with mechanistic evidence in human primary cells or tissues: orange pattern background. Agents with consistent and coherent mechanistic evidence in experimental systems (e.g., human cell line, nonhuman mammalian systems in vivo, nonhuman mammalian cells in vitro, in silico): gray background. Data are reported in Excel Tables S1–S4. Note: IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer; KC, key characteristic of carcinogens.

References

    1. Mehta SS, Morin I, Osborn K, Lemeris CR, Conti M, Lunn RM. 2023. An approach to assessing the influence of environmental and occupational cancer hazard identification on policy decision-making. Environ Health Perspect 131(12):125001, PMID: 38088579, 10.1289/EHP12681. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schubauer-Berigan MK. 2023. Invited perspective: good measure—assessing the impact of cancer hazard identification on policies for cancer prevention. Environ Health Perspect 131(12):121302, PMID: 38088578, 10.1289/EHP14099. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2019. Preamble. https://monographs.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Preamble-2019.pdf [accessed 21 January 2025].
    1. Samet JM, Chiu WA, Cogliano V, Jinot J, Kriebel D, Lunn RM, et al. . 2020. The IARC Monographs: updated procedures for modern and transparent evidence synthesis in cancer hazard identification. J Natl Cancer Inst 112(1):30–37, PMID: 31498409, 10.1093/jnci/djz169. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cogliano VJ, Baan RA, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. 2008. Use of mechanistic data in IARC evaluations. Environ Mol Mutagen 49(2):100–109, PMID: 18240161, 10.1002/em.20370. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources