NTP Logo

Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016

Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016
Menu
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/807192

Special Emphasis Panels

NTP uses ad hoc scientific panels, referred to as special emphasis panels, to provide independent scientific peer review and advice on targeted issues, such as agents of public health concern, new and revised toxicological test methods, and other issues. These panels help ensure transparent, unbiased, and scientifically rigorous input to NTP for its use in making credible decisions about human health hazards, setting research and testing priorities, and evaluating test methods for toxicity screening.

NTP Technical Report Peer Review Panels

NTP Technical Reports are published results of long-term studies, generally two-year rodent toxicology and carcinogenesis studies. NTP convenes external scientific panels to peer review draft technical reports at public meetings held at NIEHS. All reviews provide the opportunity for public comment. For each technical report, the panel is charged with peer reviewing the scientific and technical elements and presentation of the study, and determining whether the study’s experimental design and conduct support the NTP conclusions regarding the carcinogenic activity of the substance tested. There was one technical report meeting in FY 2016.

NTP convened a meeting on February 16, 2016, to peer review the draft technical report on antimony trioxide and the draft technical report on TRIM VX. The peer review panel included individuals with expertise in molecular carcinogenesis, physiology, pharmacology, inhalation pathology, statistics, inhalation toxicology, genetic toxicology, occupational health, and general toxicology and pathology. Yun Xie, Ph.D., served as designated federal officer for the meeting.

The meeting was open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comment. The charge to the panel was to (1) review and evaluate the scientific and technical elements of the study and its presentation; and (2) determine whether the study’s experimental design, conduct, and findings support the NTP conclusions regarding the carcinogenic activity and toxicity of the substance tested. The panel agreed with the NTP conclusions in the draft technical reports. Additional information about NTP Technical Report peer review meetings can be found on the NTP Technical Reports Peer Review Panels Web page.

NTP Monograph Peer Review Panels

Monographs are publications on a single, detailed specific topic. NTP convened a meeting on July 19, 2016, to peer review the draft NTP Monograph on Immunotoxicity Associated with Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). The peer review panel included individuals with expertise in immunotoxicology, molecular biology, statistics, pharmacokinetics, neurodevelopment, endocrine disrupting chemicals, epidemiology, and toxicology. Yun Xie, Ph.D., served as designated federal officer for the meeting.

The meeting was open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comment. The charge to the panel was to (1) review and evaluate the scientific and technical elements of the study and its presentation; and (2) determine whether the study’s experimental design, conduct, and findings support the NTP conclusions regarding whether immunotoxicity is associated with exposure to PFOA or PFOS. The panel agreed with the NTP conclusions in the draft monograph. Additional information about NTP monograph peer review meetings can be found on the Peer Reviews of Draft Monographs Web page.

Report on Carcinogens Peer Review Panels

NTP follows an established, four-part process for preparation of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). RoC monographs are prepared for each candidate substance selected for review and consist of a cancer evaluation component and a substance profile. NTP convenes external scientific panels to peer review draft RoC monographs. These meetings are open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comment. The panels are charged with commenting on whether the draft cancer evaluation component is technically correct and clearly stated, whether NTP objectively presents and assesses the scientific evidence, and whether the scientific evidence is adequate for applying the listing criteria. For the draft substance profile, panels are charged with commenting on whether the scientific justification presented supports the preliminary NTP policy decision on the RoC listing status.

On December 17, 2015, NTP convened a panel at NIEHS to peer review the draft RoC monograph on selected viruses. The panel voted on the draft level of evidence for carcinogenicity determination, based on the available scientific evidence in experimental animals and human cancer studies, and whether the information cited in the draft substance profile supported the NTP preliminary listing recommendation in the RoC. The review covered the viral properties and human exposure, cancer studies in experimental animals, metabolism and mechanistic data, human cancer studies, an overall cancer evaluation, and the draft substance profile. Lori White, Ph.D., served as designated federal officer for the peer review meeting. After the meeting, the input from the panel was considered in finalizing the monograph. Additional information about this meeting and other RoC monograph peer review meetings can be found on the Peer Reviews of Report on Carcinogens Monographs Web page.

NTP Expert Panels

NTP expert panels provide independent advice to NTP on agents of public health concern, new and revised toxicological test methods, or other topics. There were no NTP Expert Panel meetings in FY 2016. Additional information about NTP Expert Panel meetings can be found on the NTP Expert Panels Web page.