The Pathology Report, Peer Review, and Pathology Working Group

  • Ted A. BirkebakEmail author
  • Peter C. Mann


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.

Key words

Pathology reports Summary Methods Organ weights Macroscopic Microscopic Adversity Peer review Pathology working group 


  1. 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 32:448–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dorato MA, Engelhardt JA (2005) The no-observed-adverse-effect level in drug safety evaluations: use, issues, and definition(s). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Pesticide registration (PR) notice94–5: requests for re-considerations of carcinogenicity peer review decisions based on changes in pathology diagnoses. Last Accessed 2 Oct 2011
  4. European Medicines Agency Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (2002) Note for guidance on carcino- genic potential.
  5. Haley PJ (2017) The lymphoid system: a review of species differences. Toxicol Pathol 30:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 126:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 44:147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 30:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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–13SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 35:742–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 38:1118–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 44:810–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vishwanathan CT (2005) FDA perspectives on current issues in GLP. Presentation at Society for Quality Assurance Regulatory Forum, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc.Redwood CityUSA
  2. 2.Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc.SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations