Solecki Roland, Bergmann Brigitte, Bürgin Heinrich, Buschmann Jochen, Clark Ruth, Druga Alice, Van Duijnhoven E A J, Duverger Martine, Edwards James, Freudenberger Hannelore, Guittin Pierre, Hakaite Palmira, Heinrich-Hirsch Barbara, Hellwig Jürgen, Hofmann Thomas, Hübel Ulrich, Khalil Samia, Klaus Ana maria, Kudicke Sabine, Lingk Wolfgang, Meredith Tim, Moxon Mary, Müller Simone, Paul Martin, Paumgartten Francisco, Röhrdanz Elke, Pfeil Rudolf, Rauch-Ernst Martina, Seed Jennifer, Spezia Francois, Vickers Carolyn, Woelffel Brigitte, Chahoud Ibrahim
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Reprod Toxicol. 2003 Sep-Oct;17(5):625-37. doi: 10.1016/s0890-6238(03)00092-3.
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.
本文是关于2002年4月举办的第四届发育毒理学术语柏林研讨会的报告。该研讨会是由国际化学品安全规划署(IPCS)支持的发育毒理学术语协调领域国际项目的一部分。术语协调项目的目标是确保更好的化学风险评估。第四届研讨会的目的是讨论先前进行的一项关于外部和内脏异常分类调查的结果,这些异常列在国际术语表中,该术语表是在国际致畸剂学会(IFTS)主持下制定的(1997年术语表)。来自研究机构、监管机构和行业的专家们的讨论主要集中在存在分歧和/或不确定性的术语以及可能的原因上。为了说明“灰色地带”异常,与会者提供了图片,这些图片构成了详细讨论的基础。与会者高度一致认为,大多数外部异常(>66%)应归类为畸形。对少数难以归类为畸形的外部异常进行了详细讨论。在调查中达成高度一致的所有外部发现均未被归类为变异。约三分之一的内脏异常分类达成了高度一致,分别有34%和2%被描述为畸形和变异。大多数内脏发现的一致性指数较低,原因似乎有几个。因此,经常给出“未知/未在实验室使用”(N)的回答。异常分类困难的几个原因是,在胎儿检查中很少见到,或者往往具有物种特异性。此外,一些异常归类为畸形或变异仍将模糊不清,因为必须逐案做出决定。影响决定的因素包括:是否有适当的历史对照数据、分级和严重程度的描述、异常是孤立出现还是与异常过程有关,以及最后,该变化是否代表不可逆转的变化,是否影响人类和/或动物健康。得出的结论是,由异常图片支持的严重程度分级对于将某些变化归类为畸形或变异特别有帮助。一些软组织变化被认为可能是功能障碍的结果,因此并非严格意义上的发育异常。与会者一致同意可以将一项发现描述为“非畸形”(未分类)。总的结论是强调,即使在受调查物种的成年动物中对健康和生存没有明显不利影响,观察到永久性结构变化也应被视为对人类可能产生后果的警告。因此,需要进行研究以进一步调查产后后果问题。生殖和发育毒理学领域未来的合作应旨在进一步制定和实施统一的研究数据解释方法。因此,这项术语工作将与IPCS术语协调项目密切合作继续开展。应成立一个指导小组,以促进将统一术语应用于日常科学工作及其监管应用。