The INHAND (International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria for Lesions) Project ( www.toxpath.org/inhand.asp ) is a joint initiative of the societies of toxicologic Pathology from Europe (ESTP), Great Britain (BSTP), Japan (JSTP), and North America (STP) to develop an internationally accepted nomenclature for proliferative and nonproliferative lesions in laboratory animals. The purpose of this publication is to provide a standardized nomenclature for classifying lesions observed in most tissues and organs from the dog used in nonclinical safety studies. Some of the lesions are illustrated by color photomicrographs. The standardized nomenclature presented in this document is also available electronically on the internet ( http://www.goreni.org/ ). Sources of material included histopathology databases from government, academia, and industrial laboratories throughout the world. Content includes spontaneous lesions, lesions induced by exposure to test materials, and relevant infectious and parasitic lesions. A widely accepted and utilized international harmonization of nomenclature for lesions in laboratory animals will provide a common language among regulatory and scientific research organizations in different countries and increase and enrich international exchanges of information among toxicologists and pathologists.

Nonclinical toxicology studies that are required to support human clinical trials of new drug candidates are generally conducted in a rodent and a non-rodent species. These studies typically contain a vehicle control group and low, intermediate, and high dose test article groups. In addition, a dosing-free recovery phase is sometimes included to determine reversibility of potential toxicities observed during the dosing phase and may include additional animals in the vehicle control and one or more dose groups. Typically, reversibility is determined by comparing the test article–related changes in the dosing phase animals to concurrent recovery phase animals at the same dose level. Therefore, for interpretation of reversibility, it is not always essential to euthanize the recovery vehicle control animals. In the absence of recovery vehicle control tissues, the pathologist’s experience, historical control database, digital or glass slide repositories, or literature can be used to interpret the findings in the context of background pathology of the species/strain/age. Therefore, in most studies, the default approach could be not to euthanize recovery vehicle control animals. This article provides opinions on scenarios that may or may not necessitate euthanasia of recovery phase vehicle control animals in nonclinical toxicology studies involving dogs and nonhuman primates.