Two of the most critical components to integrate into a report are anatomic and clinical pathology. Yet they are frequently interpreted by two different individuals who are not necessarily considering the implications of both datasets. Anatomic and clinical pathology identify and characterize toxicity by different, but complementary, means. Anatomic pathology consists of microscopic, macroscopic, and organ weight data, which provides a direct evaluation of all tissue and organ changes. One of the main limitations of anatomic pathology is that the required evaluations can only be made following euthanasia, which means they can only occur at one timepoint in a study. In the life of a drug candidate’s development, since anatomic pathology follows a terminal event, it is only obtained in preclinical studies and never in clinical trials. Another unique attribute of anatomic pathology is that histopathology is a subjective evaluation communicated with specific terminologies. In contrast, clinical pathology consists of blood and urine data collected in-life that allows an indirect evaluation of an important, but limited, set of toxicities and biological changes. Since clinical pathology samples are obtainable from humans, the data is directly transferable/translatable from preclinical to clinical studies. Naturally, the best course of action would be to integrate the data to form an overall pathology assessment; however, to do this successfully requires that anatomic and clinical pathologists closely collaborate. In addition, at least one of them needs to understand the utility and limitations of both disciplines.