Abstract
The pathology report is the mechanism by which the important results of the pathology assessment are communicated to the interested parties, which range from study directors, sponsors, regulators, and investors. In this chapter, we review the structure of a pathology report and what should be expected to be in each section. The sections of a pathology report generally include a summary, description of methods, and results. The results section consists of a discussion on organ weights, macroscopic findings, and microscopic findings and should identify test article-related findings and address their significance. There is a review of terminology that is often used in pathology reports and which can be confusing to a non-pathologist. Interpretation of adversity is also discussed. The chapter expands on pathology reporting by discussing quality assessment of the pathology report through peer review and pathology working groups. The types of peer reviews and the methodology for performing them are presented as is a discussion on conducting a pathology working group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
With a few exceptions, a complete review is an examination of all protocol-listed tissue samples collected at necropsy. A few samples on the protocol list, such as nasal cavity, spinal cord, or bone marrow smears, may be collected for conditional review and are not always part of a complete review. Complete reviews are typically conducted on all (main study and recovery) high-dose and control group animals in rodent studies and on all animals in all groups in nonrodent studies. Recommendations on the tissue sampling and examination and references to relevant regulatory guidance are presented in the following best practice article: Bregman, C. L., Adler, R. R., Morton, D. G., Regan, K. S., & Yano, B. L. (2003). Recommended Tissue List for Histopathologic Examination in Repeat-Dose Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies: A Proposal of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP). Toxicologic Pathology, 31(2): 252–253.
References
Bailey SA, Zidell RH, Perry RW (2004) Relationships between organ weight and body/brain weight in the rat: what is the best analytical endpoint? Toxicol Pathol 32:448–466
Dorato MA, Engelhardt JA (2005) The no-observed-adverse-effect level in drug safety evaluations: use, issues, and definition(s). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42:265–274
Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Pesticide registration (PR) notice94–5: requests for re-considerations of carcinogenicity peer review decisions based on changes in pathology diagnoses. http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr94-5.html. Last Accessed 2 Oct 2011
European Medicines Agency Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (2002) Note for guidance on carcino- genic potential. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/
Haley PJ (2017) The lymphoid system: a review of species differences. Toxicol Pathol 30:111–123
Keller DA, Juberg DR, Catlin N, Farland WH, Hess FG, Wolf DC, Doerrer NG (2012) Identification and characterization of adverse effects in 21st century toxicology. Toxicol Sci 126:291–297
Kerlin R, Bolon B, Burkhardt J, Francke S, Greaves P, Meador V, Popp J (2016) Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee: recommended (“Best”) practices for determining, communicating, and using adverse effect data from nonclinical studies. Toxicol Pathol 44:147–162
Lewis RW, Billington R, Debryune E, Debryune Gamer A, Lang B, Carpanini F (2002) Recognition of adverse and nonadverse effects in toxicity studies. Toxicol Pathol 30:66–74
Mann PC, Vahle J, Charlotte M, Keenan JF, Baker AE, Bradley DG, Goodman TH, Herbert R, Kaufmann W, Kellner R, Nolte T, SusanneRittinghausen TT (2012) International harmonization of toxicologic pathology nomenclature: an overview and review of basic principles. Toxicol Pathol 40(4):7S–13S
Michael B, Yano B, Sellers RS, Perry R, Morton D, Roome N, Johnson JK, Schafer K (2007) Evaluation of organ weights for rodent and non-rodent toxicity studies: a review of regulatory guidelines and a survey of current practices. Toxicol Pathol 35:742–750
Morton D, Sellers RS, Barale-Thomas E, Bolon B, George C, Hardisty JF, Irizarry A, McKay JS, Odin M, Teranishi M (2010) Recommendations for pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol 38:1118–1127
Palazzi X, Burkhardt J, Caplain H, Dellarco V, Fant P, Foster J, Francke S, Germann P, Groeters S, Harada T, Harleman J, Inui K, Kaufmann W, Lenz B, Nagai H, Pohlmeyer-Esch G, Schulte A, Skydsgaard M, Tomlinson L, Wood CAND, Yoshida M (2016) Characterizing “Adversity” of pathology findings in nonclinical toxicity studies: results from the 4th ESTP international expert workshop. Toxicol Pathol 44:810–824
Vishwanathan CT (2005) FDA perspectives on current issues in GLP. Presentation at Society for Quality Assurance Regulatory Forum, Baltimore, MD
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Birkebak, T.A., Mann, P.C. (2019). The Pathology Report, Peer Review, and Pathology Working Group. In: Steinbach, T., Patrick, D., Cosenza, M. (eds) Toxicologic Pathology for Non-Pathologists. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9777-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9777-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-9776-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-9777-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)