RESUMO
This article provides observations on the features of sponsor-contract research organization communication that will achieve the best quality pathology report based on our collective experience. Information on the test article and any anticipated findings should be provided, and initial slide examination should be done with knowledge of treatment group (but may be followed by blinded review of target tissues to determine no-effect levels). Only a pathologist should write or revise the pathology report or the pathology section of the overall study report. To address concerns related to undue sponsor influence, comments by sponsors should be presented as suggestions rather than directives. Adversity should be defined for each finding by the study pathologist, but the no-observed adverse effect level should not be discussed in the pathology report. Board-certified pathologists are recommended, but are not essential. Sponsors that have a particular format or report preferences should make them known well in advance. Histologic processing "to glass" of protocol-specified tissues from all dosage groups is recommended for rapid evaluation of target tissues. Telepathology is beneficial in certain situations, but it is usually more efficient for the study pathologist and reviewing pathologist to be in the same physical location to review differences of opinion and reach a consensus.
