Histopathology Peer Review for Nonclinical Studies -- GLP Processes and Conditions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21423/JRS-V05N02P056Keywords:
regulatory affairs, nonclinical/preclinical safety assessment, toxicologic pathology, good laboratory practice/GLP, histopathology, pathology peer review, quality assuranceAbstract
Conduct of nonclinical studies in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) for safety assessment of products is mandated and monitored by multiple regulatory agencies globally. Histopathology examination of slides from any pivotal toxicology study is a critical phase performed by a study pathologist, who contributes substantially to the outcome and conclusions toward judging a product for further development, authorization or licensing. Considering such examination is scientific yet subjective based on study pathologist’s experience and expertise, the practice/expectation has been to subject at least a subset of slides for peer review by another pathologist, despite absence of regulatory need. Diverse practices and controversies around the peer review process, documentation, and reporting have continued for over three decades. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guidance on GLP requirements for peer review of histopathology (OECD, 2014) provided a concise account; nevertheless, dissension persists [20]. The United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Proposed Rule 2016 (21 CFR Part 58) brings GLP quality system framework, consistency with the OECD and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements, and inclusion in the study protocol of procedures to be followed when a study includes peer review of any phase [1]. This paper goes critically between the lines of GLP definitions, expectations, processes and conditions focusing purely on GLP compliance to peer review process across stakeholders globally.
https://doi.org/10.21423/jrs-v05n02p056 (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.
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.
Engelhardt, J. A., Hardisty, J. F., & Mann, P. C. (2013). Regulatory Forum Opinion Piece: Pathology Peer Review -- To Lock or Not to Lock, Is That Really the Question? Toxicologic Pathology, 41, 1051-1052.
European Commission. (2016). EU Legislation with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Provisions (Version March 2016). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16846/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native&GLP_provisions_EU-legislation_Mar2016
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.
Francke, S., & Mog, S. (2014, November). Peer Revoew of Preclinicial Safety Studies -- A Regulatory Pathologist's Perspective [Webinar]. Presented at IATP-STPI Seminar on Pathology Peer Review, Bengaluru, India.
Harada, T. (2012, September). Current Situation for Pathology Peer Review in Japan. Presented at 10th ESTP Congress, Stresa, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.japantoxpath.org/ja/related/peerreview/peerreview20120911_2.pdf
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 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
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
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.
McKay, J. S., Barale-Thomas, E., Bolon, B., George, C., Hardisty, J., Manabe, S., Schorsch, F., Teranishi, M., & Weber, K. (2010). Commentary on the Process of Peer Review and Pathology Data Locking. Toxicologic Pathology, 38, 508-510.
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. (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 Evaluation and Peer Review for Nonclinical Studies: Raw Data Compliance to GLP Quality Systems. Journal of Regulatory Science, 5(2), 45-55.
Tuomari, D., Elliott, G., Kulwich, B., Yarrington, J., Fouillet, X., Geoly, F., & Long, P. (2004). Society of Toxicologic Pathology Position on Histopathology Data Collection and Audit Trail: Compliance with 21 CFR parts 58 and 11. Toxicologic Pathology, 32(1), 122–123.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983). Toxic Substances Control; Good Laboratory Practice Standards; Final Rule. Retrieved from https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr048/fr048230/fr048230.pdf
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. (1976). Nonclinical Laboratory Studies – Proposed Regulations for Good Laboratory Practice. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/BioresearchMonitoring/UCM133725.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1978). Nonclinical Laboratory Studies -- Good Laboratory Practice Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/BioresearchMonitoring/UCM133728.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (1987). Good Laboratory Practice Regulations; Final Rule, 21 CFR Part 58. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ICECI/EnforcementActions/BioresearchMonitoring/ucm133730.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2010). Good Laboratory Practices for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 21 CFR Part 58. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-21/pdf/2010-31888.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Considerations for Use of Histopathology and Its Associated Methodologies to Support Biomarker Qualification, Guidance for Industry. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm285297.pdf
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2016). Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies; Proposed Rule, 21 CFR Part 16 and 58. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-24/pdf/2016-19875.pdf
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.
