Search

This article summarizes the 7th Workshop on the Terminology in Developmental Toxicology held in Berlin, May 4-6, 2011. The series of Berlin Workshops has been mainly concerned with the harmonization of terminology and classification of fetal anomalies in developmental toxicity studies. The main topics of the 7th Workshop were knowledge on the fate of anomalies after birth, use of Version 2 terminology for maternal-fetal observations and non-routinely used species, reclassification of " grey zone" anomalies and categorization of fetal observations for human health risk assessment.The paucity of data on health consequences of the postnatal permanence of fetal anomalies is relevant and further studies are needed. The Version 2 terminology is an important step forward and the terms listed in this glossary are considered also to be appropriate for most observations in non-routinely used species.Continuation of the Berlin Workshops was recommended. Topics suggested for the next Workshop were grouping of fetal observations for reporting and statistical analysis. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

This article is a report on the Fourth Berlin Workshop on Terminology in Developmental Toxicology, which was held in April 2002. The workshop is part of an international project in the field of harmonization of terminology in developmental toxicology supported by IPCS. The goal of the Harmonization Project is to ensure better chemical risk assessment. The aim of this Fourth Workshop was to discuss the results of a previously conducted survey on classification of external and visceral anomalies, which are listed in the international glossary, developed under the auspices of IFTS (1997 glossary). The discussions among experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industries were mainly focussed on terms for which there was disagreement and/or uncertainties and the possible reasons. For the illustration of "gray-zone" anomalies, pictures were provided by the participants, which constituted the basis for detailed discussions.There was high agreement that most of the external anomalies (>66%) should be classified as malformations. The few external anomalies for which there was low agreement to classify as a malformation were discussed in detail. None of the external findings, which had in the survey a high agreement, were categorized as a variation.A high agreement regarding the classification of approximately one-third of visceral anomalies was achieved with 34 and 2% being described as malformation and variation, respectively. Most of the visceral findings had low agreement indices and there appeared to be several reasons for this. Thus, the response, 'Not known/not used in the laboratory' (N) was often given. A couple of reasons for difficulties in the classification of an anomaly were that it is only rarely seen upon fetal examination or tends to be species specific. Furthermore, the classification of some anomalies as malformation or variation will remain vague as the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. Factors affecting the decision include: the availability of appropriate historical control data, description of the grading and severity, whether the anomaly occurs in isolation or whether there is a relationship with an abnormal process, and finally, if the change represents an irreversible one, affecting human and/or animal health. It was concluded that a severity grading, supported by pictures of the anomaly, would be especially helpful to classify certain changes as malformation or as variation. Several of the soft tissue changes were considered likely to be the consequence of functional disorders and thus not strictly developmental anomalies. The possibility to describe a finding as 'Not Malformation' (Unclassified) was agreed upon. As a general conclusion it was emphasized that the observation of a permanent structural change should be considered to be a warning of possible consequences to humans, even when there is no apparent adverse effect on health and survival in adult animals of the species under investigation. Therefore, research is needed to further investigate postnatal consequences. Future collaboration in the field of reproductive and developmental toxicology should aim to further develop and implement a harmonized approach to the interpretation of study data. Therefore, this terminology work will continue in close cooperation with the IPCS Harmonization Project. A Steering Group should be established to facilitate the implementation of harmonized terminology into daily scientific work and its regulatory application.

This article is a report on the Fourth Berlin Workshop on Terminology in Developmental Toxicology, which was held in April 2002. The workshop is part of an international project in the field of harmonization of terminology in developmental toxicology supported by IPCS. The goal of the Harmonization Project is to ensure better chemical risk assessment. The aim of this Fourth Workshop was to discuss the results of a previously conducted survey on classification of external and visceral anomalies, which are listed in the international glossary, developed under the auspices of IFTS (1997 glossary). The discussions among experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industries were mainly focussed on terms for which there was disagreement and/or uncertainties and the possible reasons. For the illustration of "gray-zone" anomalies, pictures were provided by the participants, which constituted the basis for detailed discussions. There was high agreement that most of the external anomalies (>66%) should be classified as malformations. The few external anomalies for which there was low agreement to classify as a malformation were discussed in detail. None of the external findings, which had in the survey a high agreement, were categorized as a variation.A high agreement regarding the classification of approximately one-third of visceral anomalies was achieved with 34 and 2% being described as malformation and variation, respectively. Most of the visceral findings had low agreement indices and there appeared to be several reasons for this. Thus, the response, 'Not known/not used in the laboratory' (N) was often given. A couple of reasons for difficulties in the classification of an anomaly were that it is only rarely seen upon fetal examination or tends to be species specific. Furthermore, the classification of some anomalies as malformation or variation will remain vague as the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. Factors affecting the decision include: the availability of appropriate historical control data, description of the grading and severity, whether the anomaly occurs in isolation or whether there is a relationship with an abnormal process, and finally, if the change represents an irreversible one, affecting human and/or animal health. It was concluded that a severity grading, supported by pictures of the anomaly, would be especially helpful to classify certain changes as malformation or as variation. Several of the soft tissue changes were considered likely to be the consequence of functional disorders and thus not strictly developmental anomalies. The possibility to describe a finding as 'Not Malformation' (Unclassified) was agreed upon. As a general conclusion it was emphasized that the observation of a permanent structural change should be considered to be a warning of possible consequences to humans, even when there is no apparent adverse effect on health and survival in adult animals of the species under investigation. Therefore, research is needed to further investigate postnatal consequences. Future collaboration in the field of reproductive and developmental toxicology should aim to further develop and implement a harmonized approach to the interpretation of study data. Therefore, this terminology work will continue in close cooperation with the IPCS Harmonization Project. A Steering Group should be established to facilitate the implementation of harmonized terminology into daily scientific work and its regulatory application.

The initial efforts of the Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine (BgVV) and the Free University of Berlin to standardise terminology in the field of developmental toxicology began in 1995. Procedures were undertaken to harmonise the terminology used by the International Federation of Teratology Societies (IFTS) and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). This article reflects these activities and is a report on the Third Workshop on the Terminology in Developmental Toxicology held in September 2000. This Workshop served as a forum to discuss the results of a survey on the classification of skeletal anomalies that had been previously sent to scientists active in the field. Although high agreement was reached among the evaluators for several terms, the use of a number of terms was rather variable. Therefore, the discussions at the workshop among the experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industry were mainly focussed on those terms for which there was disagreement and/or uncertainties and the possible reasons. Pictures provided by the participants for the illustration of "grey zone" anomalies constituted the basis for detailed discussions. In many of the cases with lower agreement, decisions were facilitated by the provision of the corresponding picture. The main reasons for lower agreement were imprecise terms, insufficient knowledge on postnatal consequences, theoretical terms that are unlikely to occur in isolation, and the possibility of observing a range of severity that might be decisive for the classification of either a malformation or variation. The attendees concluded that "grey-zone" anomalies will never disappear completely and that for the assessment, the grade of severity and/or the frequency of the observation can be decisive for the terminology chosen. A Joint IPCS/IFTS Project was proposed to further consensus of terminology and classification and to link these anomalies to pictures at different skeletal sites. In order to support the harmonisation of regulatory decisions, it was proposed to establish a "Clearinghouse" System under the umbrella of the IPCS. The Clearinghouse could be contacted either by the regulatory authorities or by any company to clarify their queries, particularly with regard to registration or authorisation processes. Finally, it was recommended to also carry out a similar survey on "soft tissue anomalies" and "external findings." The results of this survey will be discussed at a Joint IPCS/IFTS Workshop in Berlin in 2002.