Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Virtual Control Groups and Their Implications for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology Evaluation During Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

Replacement of concurrent control groups (CCG) with virtual control groups (VCG) has been advocated as a strategy to reduce animal use in nonclinical toxicity testing. This "Points to Consider" paper examines VCG utility as it impacts toxicologic pathology endpoints and identifies the following points. (1) The CCG remains the gold standard, as it best controls for extrinsic and intrinsic study variables in discriminating subtle effects. (2) Pure VCG are unlikely to provide the same discernment since historical control data (HCD) from which VCG are assembled do not share all biological, environmental, husbandry, and procedural attributes of animals in the current study. (3) Clinical pathology endpoints are particularly vulnerable to VCG distortion given their dynamic range and sensitivity to preanalytical variables, with proof-of-concept studies demonstrating nonreproducibility rates for data interpretation of 31% to 49%. (4) Hybrid control groups combining reduced CCG with VCG are the most rational implementation strategy, balancing 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) goals with scientific rigor and ongoing HCD refreshment. (5) The HCD pools require major upgrades, including comprehensive individual animal metadata, particularly for preanalytical and analytical variables, and (6) access to archived tissues as whole-slide scanned images, permitting reevaluation by the study pathologist using consistent nomenclature and grading criteria. (7) No major regulatory authority currently accepts VCG as a replacement for CCG in Good Laboratory Practice studies, and (8) proprietary data and data-sharing barriers to building sufficiently large multi-institutional HCD databases remain unresolved. (9) The VCG feasibility is highly species-dependent. (10) Multiple other new approach methodologies and modified study designs can support reduced animal use when VCG are not an optimal approach.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Toxicologic Pathology
Published
2026-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/01926233261475980
Primary Topic
Animal testing and alternatives
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Virtual Control Groups and Their Implications for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology Evaluation During Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

Laura I. Boone, Brad N. Bolon, Katherine Hammerman, Pierre Maliver et al.
Toxicologic Pathology
Animal testing and alternatives
article

Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee Points to Consider: Virtual Control Groups and Their Implications for Anatomic and Clinical Pathology Evaluation During Nonclinical Toxicity Studies

Laura I. Boone, Brad N. Bolon, Katherine Hammerman, Pierre Maliver, Kenneth A. Schafer, Lars Mecklenburg, Anne Provencher, Stacey L. Fossey, Lila Ramaiah, Renee Rosemary Hukkanen, Armelle Grevot, Daniel J. Patrick, Natalie Hoepp, Kirstin F. Barnhart
article en

Abstract

Replacement of concurrent control groups (CCG) with virtual control groups (VCG) has been advocated as a strategy to reduce animal use in nonclinical toxicity testing. This "Points to Consider" paper examines VCG utility as it impacts toxicologic pathology endpoints and identifies the following points. (1) The CCG remains the gold standard, as it best controls for extrinsic and intrinsic study variables in discriminating subtle effects. (2) Pure VCG are unlikely to provide the same discernment since historical control data (HCD) from which VCG are assembled do not share all biological, environmental, husbandry, and procedural attributes of animals in the current study. (3) Clinical pathology endpoints are particularly vulnerable to VCG distortion given their dynamic range and sensitivity to preanalytical variables, with proof-of-concept studies demonstrating nonreproducibility rates for data interpretation of 31% to 49%. (4) Hybrid control groups combining reduced CCG with VCG are the most rational implementation strategy, balancing 3Rs (reduction, refinement, replacement) goals with scientific rigor and ongoing HCD refreshment. (5) The HCD pools require major upgrades, including comprehensive individual animal metadata, particularly for preanalytical and analytical variables, and (6) access to archived tissues as whole-slide scanned images, permitting reevaluation by the study pathologist using consistent nomenclature and grading criteria. (7) No major regulatory authority currently accepts VCG as a replacement for CCG in Good Laboratory Practice studies, and (8) proprietary data and data-sharing barriers to building sufficiently large multi-institutional HCD databases remain unresolved. (9) The VCG feasibility is highly species-dependent. (10) Multiple other new approach methodologies and modified study designs can support reduced animal use when VCG are not an optimal approach.

Toxicologic Pathology
Roche (Switzerland) (CH), Novartis (Switzerland) (CH), Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US), Amgen (United States) (US), Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US), Eli Lilly (United States) (US), Pfizer (United States) (US), LabCorp (United States) (US), AbbVie (United States) (US), Therapeutics Clinical Research (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Animal testing and alternatives
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.