Histopathology Evaluation and Peer Review for Nonclinical Studies: Raw Data Compliance to GLP Quality Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21423/JRS-V05N02P045Keywords:
raw data, quality system, good laboratory practice, histopathology, pathology peer review, nonclinical studyAbstract
Histopathology evaluation of animal tissues from a nonclinical toxicological study by a study pathologist contributes substantially to the endpoint(s) of a GLP compliant study. Often, selected tissue slides, existing and new, evaluated by a study pathologist, are peer reviewed by an expert pathologist, to assure and improve quality of observations and interpretation. The peer review process, having scope to change certain components of a pathology report, can lead to changes in observations, interpretation and potential outcome/conclusions of a study. The GLP regulations of several countries provide quality system approaches, which are though similar have differences in their statutes and expectations. The heart of the matter of GLP quality systems is raw data to ensure their true reflection in final report and help reconstruction. In 1987, the U. S. FDA specially interpreted "raw data" applicable for histopathology evaluation. However, there is no conclusive change by other Agencies, except the OECD (2014) guidance. Inconsistencies and controversies prevailed during the last three decades on different perspectives of raw data applicable for histopathology evaluation and peer review of different types. This paper goes critically between the lines of GLP definitions, expectations and diverse practices, seeking harmonized interpretation by all stakeholders for complying with multiple regulations.
https://doi.org/10.21423/jrs-v05n02p045 (DOI assigned 3/11/2019)
References
Crissman, J. W., Goodman, D. G., Hildebrandt, P. K., Maronpot, R. R., Prater, D. A., Riley, J. H., Seaman, W. J., & Thake, D. C. (2004). Best Practices Guideline: Toxicologic Histopathology. Toxicologic Pathology, 32, 126-131.
Directive 2004/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (2004). The Harmonisation of Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions Relating to the Application of the Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and the Verification of Their Applications for Tests on Chemical Substances (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union, L50, 44-59. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:050:0044:0059:en:PDF
Dua, P. N., & Jackson, B. A. (1988). Review of Pathology Data for Regulatory Purposes. Toxicologic Pathology, 16, 443-450.
Eighmy, J. J. (1996). Study Pathologist Perspective of Pathology Peer Review. Toxicologic Pathology, 24, 647-649.
Fikes, J. D., Patrick, D. J., Francke, S., Frazier, K. S., Reindel, J. F., Romeike, A., Spaet, R. H., Tomlinson, L., & Schafer, K. A. (2015). Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Review: Review of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology. Toxicologic Pathology, 43, 907-914.
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO). (1999). The Good Laboratory Practice Regulations 1999. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3106/pdfs/uksi_19993106_en.pdf
Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. (1999). Notification on the Good Laboratory Practice for Agricultural Chemicals. Retrieved from https://www.acis.famic.go.jp/eng/glp/GLPmain.pdf
Japanese Ministry for Health and Welfare. (1997). Ministerial Ordinance on Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Safety Studies of Drugs, Ordinance No. 21 (as last amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare No.114 of June 13, 2008). Retrieved from https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000153713.pdf
Kerlin, R. L. (2012). Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece: Raw Data in Pathology -- Always a Conundrum, Often a Controversy. Toxicologic Pathology, 40, 695-696.
Leininger, J. R., & Parker, G. A. (2014). Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece: What Are Pathology Raw Data? Toxicologic Pathology, 42, 469-471.
Mann, P. C. (1996). Pathology Peer Review from the Perspective of an External Peer Review Pathologist. Toxicologic Pathology, 24, 650-653.
Mann, P. C., & Hardisty, J. F. (2013). Peer Review and Pathology Working Groups. In W. M. Haschek, C. G. Rousseaux, M. A. Wallig, B. Bolon, R. Ochoa, & B. W. Mahler (Eds.), Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology (pp. 551-564). New York: Elsevier.
Morton, D., Sellers, R. S., Barale-Thomas, E., Bolon, B., George, C., Hardisty, J. F., Irizarry, A., McKay, J. S., Odin, M., & Teranishi, M. (2010). Recommendations for Pathology Peer Review. Toxicologic Pathology, 38, 1118-1127.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1981). Decision of the Council concerning the Mutual Acceptance of Data in the Assessment of Chemicals. Retrieved from http://acts.oecd.org/Instruments/ShowInstrumentView.aspx?InstrumentID=263&InstrumentPID=361&Lang=en&Book=False
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring, Number 1. OECD Principles on Good Laboratory Practice (as revised in 1997), ENV/MC/CHEM(98)17, 1-41. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/mc/chem(98)17&doclanguage=en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring, Number 13. Consensus Document of the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice, The Application of the OECD Principles of GLP to the Organisation and Management of Multi-Site Studies, ENV/JM/MONO(2002)9, 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono(2002)9
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Guidance Document 116 on the Conduct and Design of Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies, Supporting Testing Guidelines 451, 452 and 453, 2nd edition. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9714361e.pdf?expires=1499796237&id=id&accname=guest&checksum4=93CF16D9F5350A1D8807BFCDAE83868D
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring, Number 16. Advisory Document of the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice, Guidance on the GLP Requirements for Peer Review of Histopathology, ENV/JM/MONO(2014)30, 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2014)30&doclanguage=en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). OECD Series on Principles of Good Laboratory Practice and Compliance Monitoring, Number 17. Advisory Document of the Working Group on Good Laboratory Practice, Application of GLP Principles to Computerised Systems, ENV/JM/MONO(2016)13, 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2016)13&doclanguage=en
Settiagounder, N. (2017). Histopathology Peer Review for Nonclinical Studies -- GLP Processes and Conditions. Journal of Regulatory Science, 5(2), 56-66.
Tomlinson, M. J., & Leininger, J. R. (2014). Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece: Clarification and Simplification of the Pathology Peer Review Documentation Process. Toxicologic Pathology, 42, 309-310.
Tuomari, D. L., Kemp, R. K., Sellers, R., Yarrington, J. T., Geoly, F. J., Fouillet, X. L. M., Dybdal, N., & Perry, R. (2007). Society of Toxicologic Pathology Position Paper on Pathology Image Data: Compliance with 21 CFR 58 & 11. Toxicologic Pathology, 35, 450-455.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1980, 1993). Books and Records of Pesticide Production and Distribution, 40 CFR 169. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e4e0187aa363726cc71fb875787e46f3&mc=true&node=pt40.26.169&rgn=div5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1987). Notice to Pesticide Applicants, Registrants and Petitioners (PR Notice 87-10).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1989). Good Laboratory Practice Standards, 40 CFR 160 & 792. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e5f53f9ca071b342c182f09a9f961eda&mc=true&node=pt40.26.160&rgn=div5 and https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e5f53f9ca071b342c182f09a9f961eda&mc=true&node=pt40.35.792&rgn=div5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Requests for Reconsiderations of Carcinogenicity Peer Review Decisions Based on Changes in Pathology Diagnoses (PR Notice 94-5). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/prn-94-5-requests-re-considerations-carcinogenicity-peer-review-decisions
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1987). Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies, 21 CFR 58. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f2d99567d909a79da0e1bbfe2879e4ec&mc=true&node=pt21.1.58&rgn=div5
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1987). Good Laboratory Practice Regulations; Final Rule}, 21 CFR 58. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/BioresearchMonitoring/ucm133730.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1997). Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures, 21 CFR Part 11. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-03-20/pdf/97-6833.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies; Proposed Rule, 21 CFR 16 & 58. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-24/pdf/2016-19875.pdf
Ward, J. M., Hardisty, J. F., Hailey, J. R., & Streett, C. S. (1995). Peer Review in Toxicologic Pathology.Toxicologic Pathology, 23, 226-234.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Journal of Regulatory Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting content to the Journal of Regulatory Science (JRS), authors agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the JRS the right of first publication. Authors retain patent, trademark, and other intellectual property rights (including research data) and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article according to the Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International — CC BY-NC 4.0 license agreement. The JRS is an open access journal and, as a result, articles are free to use with proper acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process.
- If excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article.
- The publication of the submission has been approved by all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute or organization where the work has been carried out.
- Copyright has not been breached in seeking publication of the submission.
