A Commentary on the Process of Peer Review and Pathology Data Locking

Toxicologic Pathology

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 508-510

  Mckay, Jennifer S ^a   Barale Thomas, Erio ^b   Bolon, Brad ^c   George, Catherine ^d   Hardisty, Jerry ^e   Manabe, Sunao ^f   Schorsch, Frédéric ^g   Teranishi, Munehiro ^f   Weber, Klaus ^h  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Belgium)

^c GEMpath Inc   (United States)

^d IPSEN   (France)

^e EXPERIMENTAL PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES INC   (United States)

^f DAIICHI SANKYO CO   (Japan)

^g BAYER AG   (Germany)

^h Harlan   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; EUROPEAN UNION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JAPAN; NOTE; PATHOLOGIST; PATHOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED STATES;

GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PATHOLOGY; PEER REVIEW;

EID: 77952527126     PISSN: 01926233     EISSN: 15331601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0192623310364024     Document Type: Note

References (17)

1. Yakuji Nipposha. (2008). Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Handbook of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices. Vol. 1. Yakuji Nipposha, Chiyoda, Tokyo, Japan.
2. Barale-Thomas E. Bradley A. (2009). Results of the “peer review survey”: The report is open for comments. Poster presented at the annual general meeting of the European Society of Toxicologic Pathology, September 15-18, 2009, The Hague, The Netherlands.
3. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Volume 21, Part 58 and Part 11.
4. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. (2002). Note for guidance on carcinogenic potential. CPMP/SWP/2877/00, http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/287700en.pdf.
5. Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products, the Environment. Chapter 3.6: Investigations (including histopathological guidance). In The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidance Document for the Performance of Chronic Toxicity and Carcinogenicity Studies. Annex 1 to CC/09/09, http://iacoc.org.uk/papers/documents/CC0909OECDGuidanceUKChapter.pdf.
6. 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. Toxicol Pathol 32, 126–31.
7. Frantz J. D. (1997). Pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol 25, 335–38.
8. Japanese Society of Toxcologic Pathology (2009). Panel Discussion: Regulatory perspective for pathology data. J Toxicol Pathol 22, 209–27.
9. Lepore P. D. (1996). Pathology raw data. Toxicol Pathol 24, 147.
10. Mann P. C. (1996). Pathology peer review from the perspective of an external peer review pathologist. Toxicol Pathol 24, 650–53.
11. McCullough B. Valerio M. G. Miller G. Pino M. V. Mirsky M. (1997). Pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol 25, 337–38.
12. Morton D. Kemp R. K. Francke-Carroll S. Jensen K. McCartney J. Monticello T. M. Perry R. Pulido O. Roome N. Schafer K. Sellers R. Snyder P. (2006). Best practices for reporting pathology interpretations within GLP toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol 34, 806–9.
13. Society of Toxicologic Pathologists. (1991). Peer review in toxicologic pathology: Some recommendations. Toxicol Pathol 19, 290–92.
14. Society of Toxicologic Pathologists. (1997). Documentation of pathology peer review: Position of the Society of Toxicologic Pathologists. Toxicol Pathol 25, 655.
15. 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. Toxicol Pathol 32, 122–23.
16. U.S. Food, Drug Administration. (1987, September 4). Preamble to the GLP Regulations. Fed Reg 52(172), 33768–82.
17. Ward J. W. Hardisty J. F. Hailey J. R. Streett C. S. (1995). Peer review in toxicologic pathology. Toxicol Pathol 23, 226–34.