Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-4
Toxicologic Pathology Forum*: Opinion on Remote Digital Toxicologic Pathology in Practice—Lessons From a Digital Team and Approach to Scientific Quality,Flexibility,and Well-Being
The field of toxicologic pathology is increasingly embracing digital transformation, making remote work a viable and sustainable model. At Charles River Laboratories Evreux, we have developed a fully operational remote digital pathology team working across multiple European countries while maintaining strict regulatory compliance and high scientific standards. This article offers a practical experience-based perspective on how we manage remote toxicologic pathologists by promoting flexibility, fostering collaboration, and ensuring both productivity and well-being (understood here as encompassing work-life balance, mental health, job satisfaction, and social connection). With the right tools, structure, and culture, remote pathology can thrive—bringing new opportunities to individuals and organizations alike.
BoisclairJBawaBBarale-ThomasE, et al. IT/QA and regulatory aspects of digital pathology: results of the 8th ESTP international workshop. Toxicol Pathol. 2022;50(6):793-807. doi:10.1177/01926233221113275.
2.
BolonB.Musings on education for toxicologic pathology proficiency in a post-pandemic, remotely working world. Toxicol Pathol. 2023;51(4):225-227. doi:10.1177/01926233231190403.
3.
BradleyAJacobsenM.Toxicologic pathology forum*: opinion on considerations for the use of whole slide images in GLP pathology peer review. Toxicol Pathol. 2019;47(2):100-107. doi:10.1177/0192623318818790.
4.
BradleyAECaryMGIsobeKNaylorSDrewS.Proof of concept: the use of whole-slide images (WSI) for peer review of tissues on routine regulatory toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2021;49(4):750-754. doi:10.1177/0192623320983252.
5.
ForestTAeffnerFBangariDS, et al. Scientific and regulatory policy committee points to consider: primary digital histopathology evaluation and peer review for good laboratory practice (GLP) nonclinical toxicology studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2022;50(4):531-543. doi:10.1177/01926233221099273.
6.
HukkanenRRTrapaniMDerringerT, et al. Toxicologic pathology forum: opinion on performing good laboratory practice histopathology evaluation for nonclinical toxicity studies in a remote location. Toxicol Pathol. 2023;51(3):148-152. doi:10.1177/01926233231168133.
7.
JacobsenMLewisABailyJFraserARudmannDRyanS.Utilizing whole slide images for the primary evaluation and peer review of a GLP-compliant rodent toxicology study. Toxicol Pathol. 2021;49(6):1164-1173. doi:10.1177/01926233211017031.
8.
LemppCArmsSBertramCA, et al. A minimal approach to demonstrate concordance of digital and conventional microscopy in toxicologic pathology. Toxicol Pathol. 2024;52(5):251-257. doi:10.1177/01926233241255125.
PerleKMD. Toxicologic pathology forum: opinion on digital primary read and peer review—diving head-first into the deep digital pool!Toxicol Pathol. 2024;53(2):215-217. doi:10.1177/01926233241303909.
11.
Pohlmeyer-EschGHalseyCBoisclairJ, et al. Digital pathology and artificial intelligence applied to nonclinical toxicology pathology—the current state, challenges, and future directions. Toxicol Pathol. 2025;53:516-535. doi:10.1177/01926233251340622.
SchaferKARaoDB.Toxicologic pathology forum: opinion on digital primary read and peer review-are we there yet?Toxicol Pathol. 2025;53(2):210-214. doi:10.1177/01926233241303911.
14.
SchumacherVLAeffnerFBarale-ThomasE, et al. The application, challenges, and advancement toward regulatory acceptance of digital toxicologic pathology: results of the 7th ESTP international expert workshop (September 20-21, 2019). Toxicol Pathol. 2021;49(4):720-737. doi:10.1177/0192623320975841.
15.
ThoolenBBradleyAStathonikosNvan DiestPJ.Toxicologic pathology forum*: opinion on the future of histopathology using whole slide images in toxicologic pathology of preclinical studies and its successful implementation in compliance with good laboratory practice—yes, we are there!Toxicol Pathol. 2025;53(7):630-637. doi:10.1177/01926233251366270.
