The Application, Challenges, and Advancement Toward Regulatory Acceptance of Digital Toxicologic Pathology: Results of the 7th ESTP International Expert Workshop (September 20-21, 2019).

With advancements in whole slide imaging technology and improved understanding of the features of pathologist workstations required for digital slide evaluation, many institutions are investigating broad digital pathology adoption. The benefits of digital pathology evaluation include remote access to study or diagnostic case materials and integration of analysis and reporting tools. Diagnosis based on whole slide images is established in human medical pathology, and the use of digital pathology in toxicologic pathology is increasing. However, there has not been broad adoption in toxicologic pathology, particularly in the context of regulatory studies, due to lack of precedence. To address this topic, as well as practical aspects, the European Society of Toxicologic Pathology coordinated an expert international workshop to assess current applications and challenges and outline a set of minimal requirements needed to gain future regulatory acceptance for the use of digital toxicologic pathology workflows in research and development, so that toxicologic pathologists can benefit from digital slide technology.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum*: Opinion on Integrating Innovative Digital Pathology Tools in the Regulatory Framework.

Digital pathology is defined as the ability to examine digitized microscopic slides and to generate qualitative and quantitative data. The field of digital pathology is rapidly evolving and has the potential to revolutionize toxicologic pathology. Techniques such as automated 2-D image analysis, whole slide imaging, and telepathology are already considered "mature" technologies and have been used for decades in exploratory studies; however, many organizations are reluctant to use digital pathology in regulatory toxicology studies. Innovative technologies using digitized slides including high-content imaging modalities and artificial intelligence are still under development but are increasingly used in toxicologic pathology. While software validation requirements are already described, clear guidance for application of these rules to the digital pathology field are few and the acceptance of these technologies by regulatory authorities remains necessary for successful adoption of digital pathology into the mainstream of toxicologic pathology. This topic was discussed during a roundtable at the 2018 Annual Congress of the French Society of Toxicologic Pathology. This opinion article summarizes the discussion regarding the current questions and challenges on the integration of innovative digital pathology tools within a good laboratory practice framework and is meant to stimulate further discussion among the toxicologic pathology community. *This is an opinion article submitted to the Toxicologic Pathology Forum and does not constitute an official position of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology or the journal Toxicologic Pathology. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies, positions, or opinions of their respective agencies and organizations. The Toxicologic Forum is designed to stimulate broad discussion of topics relevant to regulatory issues in Toxicologic pathology. Readers of Toxicologic Pathology are encouraged to send their thoughts on these articles or ideas for new topics to toxicologicpathologyforum@toxpath.org .

Good cell culture practices &in vitro toxicology.

Good Cell Culture Practices (GCCP) is of high relevance to in vitro toxicology. The European Society of Toxicology In Vitro (ESTIV), the Center for Alternatives for Animal Testing (CAAT) and the In Vitro Toxicology Industrial Platform (IVTIP) joined forces to address by means of an ESTIV 2016 pre-congress session the different aspects and applications of GCCP. The covered aspects comprised the current status of the OECD guidance document on Good In Vitro Method Practices, the importance of quality assurance for new technological advances in in vitro toxicology including stem cells, and the optimized implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices and Good Laboratory Practices for regulatory testing purposes. General discussions raised the duality related to the difficulties in implementing GCCP in an academic innovative research framework on one hand, and on the other hand, the need for such GCCP principles in order to ensure reproducibility and robustness of in vitro test methods for toxicity testing. Indeed, if good cell culture principles are critical to take into consideration for all uses of in vitro test methods for toxicity testing, the level of application of such principles may depend on the stage of development of the test method as well as on the applications of the test methods, i.e., academic innovative research vs. regulatory standardized test method.

Risk-based assessment applied to QA GLP audits. How to fulfill regulatory requirements while making the best use of our common sense, knowledge, talents, and resources?

For ages the standard plan of internal good laboratory practice (GLP) audits has been designed according to the study critical phases concept. A decade ago the concept of facility-based and processbased audits was adopted, mostly under the influence of short-term and in vitro study design. For unclear reasons, the quarterly inspection scheme has been the prevailing rule. Nowadays, the emerging concept of risk management reaches the field of GLP. In this context, the following items are discussed: i) nature of risks associated with the GLP principles and GLP studies; ii) risk in a GLP environment and criteria used to characterize a risk in laboratory and in an environment of research and development; iii) quality and integrity of data, study results and scientific conclusions; iv) risks associated to the processes and those associated to the products; v) workers safety; vi) consumers safety; vii) variety of tools available for the assessment of the above specific risks; viii) principles of risk assessment (the five-step approach); ix) standard and specific risk assessment tools; x) required level of accuracy; xi) use of risk assessment results for the elaboration of audit plans; xi) nature of information obtained; xii) prioritization; xiii) intrinsic risk versus available resources; xiv) potential caveats from a regulatory standpoint; xv) compatibility of risk approach with the GLP regulatory requirements; xvi) how to demonstrate the GLP goals are fulfilled although some of the GLP specific requirements may not be; xvii) benefits of this approach for the audits efficiency and the quality systems improvement; xviii) what the risk approach provides to the organization; xix) how does risk approach efficiency compare to standard efficacy; xx) use of metrics for continuous improvement.