Study Pathologist Perspective of Pathology Peer Review

Abstract

1. Peer reviews help to ensure the accuracy of the study pathologist's findings and thereby improve the quality of the pathology data and increase confidence in the final interpretation of the pathology portion of a toxicologic study. Having a second skilled pathologist examine slides from a study is a particularly important feature considering the large number of tissues on some studies (we have some ongoing chronics with approximately 50,000 tissues per study), the relatively short time period in which microscopic examination must be completed (and Disadvantages of informal peer reviews:1. The process is not documented.2. The &dquo;peer review&dquo; person looking at the slides is like-

Best Practices Guideline: Toxicologic Histopathology

“…The peerreview pathologist usually reviews a defined subset of animals and tissues as well as the study interpretation. A number of procedures can be used for peer review (Eighmy, 1996;Frantz, 1997;Mann, 1996;McCullough et al, 1997;Peters, 1996; Position of the Society of Toxicologic Pathologist: Documentation of Pathology Peer Review, 1997; Sahota, 1997; The Society of Toxicologic Pathologists, Peer Review in Toxicologic Pathology: Some Recommendations, 1991; Ward et al, 1995). Peer reviews are generally prospective in that they are included in the protocol and are conducted prior to the issuance of the study report (Ward et al, 1995).…”

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology: Advances and Adventures in the First 50 Years

“…For example, STP members were key leaders in evaluating the biological effects of dietary restriction on animal viability, as well as the incidences and severities of chronic diseases and neoplasms during lifetime rodent carcinogenicity bioassays. [16][17][18][19] Members of STP were also influential discussants in defining appropriate practice standards for such routine toxicologic pathology tasks as clinical pathology interpretation, [20][21][22] pathology peer review, [23][24][25][26] quantitative analysis, 27 and collection and trimming of unusual organs (eg, inner ear, 28 larynx 29 ). The Society's dedication to collaborative science in the field was affirmed by the EC decision in 1999 to support the creation of 2 toxicologic pathology groups.…”

“…A series of articles on pathology peer review was published in 1995 and 1996 due to the continued discussion among pathologists, regulators, and other scientists regarding appropriate practices for this task. [24][25][26]53,54 The success of the 1996 peer review series was followed in 1997 by a decision to produce occasional dedicated issues (in addition to the Annual Symposium issue) under the control of one or a few Guest Editors.…”

Recommendations for Pathology Peer Review

“…The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) and many individual toxicologic pathologists have published recommendations and commentary on the topic of pathology peer review over the past two decades (Eighmy 1996;Frantz 1997;Mann 1996;McCullough et al 1997;Morton et al 2006;Sahota 1997;STP 1991STP , 1997Tuomari et al 2004;Ward et al 1995). Collectively, these publications outline the evolving perspectives regarding the purpose of the pathology peer review, the role of the peer-review pathologist, and the most appropriate conduct and documentation of the peer-review process.…”

“…Technological advances in pathology assessment and communications together with evolving expectations within regulatory agencies have stimulated recent global discussions of best practices for pathology peer review (Barale-Thomas and Bradley 2009; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2009; McKay et al 2010). The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) and many individual toxicologic pathologists have published recommendations and commentary on the topic of pathology peer review over the past two decades (Eighmy 1996; Frantz 1997; Mann 1996; McCullough et al 1997; Morton et al 2006; Sahota 1997; STP 1991, 1997; Tuomari et al 2004; Ward et al 1995). Collectively, these publications outline the evolving perspectives regarding the purpose of the pathology peer review, the role of the peer-review pathologist, and the most appropriate conduct and documentation of the peer-review process.…”