Search

Toxicologic/veterinary pathologists are working remotely from Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) test facilities (TFs) in increasing numbers, most commonly in home-office settings. A study pathologist (SP) generating data on GLP-compliant nonclinical studies must be keenly aware of applicable national GLP regulations and comply with TF and protocol requirements. This Toxicological Pathology Forum Opinion Piece will summarize primary areas of emphasis for the SP generating GLP data using glass slides. Peer review and digital review of whole slide images are out of scope for this opinion piece. Key GLP considerations for primary pathology on glass slides are discussed with respect to SP location and employment status, including pathologist qualifications, specimen management, facilities, equipment, archive, and quality assurance. Notable differences between national GLP regulations of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, and Israel are presented. With the understanding that each combination of location and employment is unique, the authors provide a general overview of considerations for successful remote GLP work.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has affected business on numerous fronts in unprecedented and abrupt ways. From site closures and local "stay-at-home orders" to travel advisories and restrictions, the day-to-day practice of toxicologic pathology has been impacted dramatically and rapidly. A critical function of Toxicologic Pathologists is performing pathology peer review for nonclinical studies. Traditionally, corroborating the findings of histological assessment could be achieved through shipment of histopathological slides to the peer review pathologist, or by the peer review pathologist traveling to the location of the slides (eg, the test facility). Since early 2020, many pathologists have been unable to perform the latter due to local, regional, national, test facility, company, and/or personal restrictions. The disruption for some has been minimal, while others are working from home for the first time. We recommend that contingency plans for all peer review procedures and personnel should be in-place to accommodate sudden and unexpected workflow transitions. Now, more than ever, approaching peer reviews with enhanced adaptability will help ensure success.