Comment on Saber et al. (2019), "Commentary: the chronic inhalation study in rats for assessing lung cancer risk may be better than its reputation"

Kevin E Driscoll; Paul A Borm; Ishrat Chaudhuri; Len Levy; Mei Yong; David Warheit; Robert McCunney; Günter Oberdörster

doi:10.1186/s12989-020-00365-z

Comment on Saber et al. (2019), "Commentary: the chronic inhalation study in rats for assessing lung cancer risk may be better than its reputation"

Part Fibre Toxicol. 2020 Jul 16;17(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12989-020-00365-z.

Authors

Kevin E Driscoll¹, Paul A Borm^{2

3}, Ishrat Chaudhuri⁴, Len Levy⁵, Mei Yong⁶, David Warheit⁷, Robert McCunney⁸, Günter Oberdörster⁹

Affiliations

¹ Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, New Brunswick, NY, 07046, USA. kevinedriscoll1@gmail.com.
² Nanoconsult, Meerssen, Netherlands.
³ Düsseldorf University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
⁴ Cabot Corporation, Billerica, MA, USA.
⁵ Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.
⁶ MY EpiConsulting, Düsseldorf, Germany.
⁷ Warheit Scientific LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
⁸ Pulmonary Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
⁹ School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.

Abstract

In their Commentary Saber et al. (Part Fibre Toxicol 16: 44, 2019) argue that chronic inhalation studies in rats can be used for assessing the lung cancer risk of insoluble nanomaterials. The authors make several significant errors in their interpretation and representation of the underlying science. In this Letter to the Editor we discuss these inaccuracies to correct the scientific record. When the science is recounted accurately it does not support Saber et al's statements and conclusions.

Publication types

Letter
Comment

MeSH terms

Administration, Inhalation
Animals
Lung Neoplasms*
Lung*
Rats