{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.060786650774731825, 'fraction_numerical': 0.06436233611442194, 'mean_word_length': 4.490196078431373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letter to the Editor

Jolette et al. (Toxicol Pathol, 34, 929–940, 2006) report the effects of recombinant human PTH(1-84) in a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study and compare their results to our studies with recombinant human PTH(1-34), teriparatide (Vahle et al., 2002, 2004). The authors state that PTH(1-84) has less carcinogenic potential than PTH(1-34) (Vahle et al., 2002, 2004). This interpretation appears to be based on 1) the relatively small numeric difference in bone tumor rates between the current study and a previously published study of PTH(134) and 2) the identification of a no-effect level (NOEL) for bone tumors at the 24-month time point in the Jolette et al. study. The authors suggest that this difference may be related to a theoretical role for the C-terminal region in PTH(1-84) which is not present in PTH(1-34).