European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening have been initiated in the Europe Against Cancer Programme. The first edition established the principles of organised population-based screening and stimulated numerous pilot projects. The second multidisciplinary edition was published in 2008 and comprises ∼250 pages divided into seven chapters prepared by 48 authors and contributors. Considerable attention has been devoted to organised, population-based programme policies which minimise adverse effects and maximise benefits of screening. It is hoped that this expanded guidelines edition will have a greater impact on countries in which screening programmes are still lacking and in which opportunistic screening has been preferred in the past. Other methodological aspects such as future prospects of human papillomavirus testing and vaccination in cervical cancer control have also been examined in the second edition; recommendations for integration of the latter technologies into European guidelines are currently under development in a related project supported by the European Union Health Programme. An overview of the fundamental points and principles that should support any quality-assured screening programme and key performance indicators are presented here in a summary document of the second guidelines edition in order to make these principles and standards known to a wider scientific community.

Synovial Sarcoma consistently harbors t(X;18) resulting in SS18-SSX1, SS18-SSX2 and rarely SS18-SSX4 fusion transcripts. Of 328 cases included in our study, synovial sarcoma was either the primary diagnosis or was very high in the differential diagnosis in 134 cases: of these, amplifiable cDNA was obtained from 131. SS18-SSX fusion products were found in 126 (96%) cases (74 SS18-SSX1, 52 SS18-SSX2), using quantitative and 120 by conventional reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). One hundred and one cases in a tissue microarray, analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), revealed that 87 (86%) showed SS18 rearrangement: four RT-PCR positive cases, reported as negative for FISH, showed loss of one spectrum green signal, and 15 cases had multiple copies of the SS18 gene: both findings are potentially problematic when interpreting results. One of three cases, not analyzed by RT-PCR reaction owing to poor quality RNA, was positive by FISH. SS18-SSX1 was present in 56 monophasic and 18 biphasic synovial sarcoma: SS18-SSX2 was detected in 41 monophasic and 11 biphasic synovial sarcoma. Poorly differentiated areas were identified in 44 cases (31%). There was no statistically significant association between biphasic, monophasic and fusion type. Five cases were negative for SS18 rearrangement by all methods, three of which were pleural-sited neoplasms. Following clinical input, a diagnosis of mesothelioma was favored in one case, a sarcoma, not otherwise specified in another and a solitary fibrous tumor in the third case. The possibility of a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor could not be excluded in the other two cases. We concluded that the employment of a combination of molecular approaches is a powerful aid to diagnosing synovial sarcoma giving at least 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity but results must be interpreted in the light of other modalities such as clinical findings and immunohistochemical data.

The role of breast FNAC in diagnosis and clinical management: a survey of current practice Most participating countries have now adopted a triple assessment approach, i.e. clinical,imaging and pathology, to breast diagnosis, with FNAC as the first-line pathological investigation in both screening and symptomatic populations, with the exception of microcalcifications. Pathologists specialized in cytopathology are best qualified to collect and interpret FNAC samples, but this is not always possible or practical. Radiologists involved in breast imaging should ensure that they have the necessary skills to carry out FNAC under all forms of image guidance. Best results are achieved by a combination of both techniques, as shown in the image-guided FNAC in the presence of the cytopathologist. The majority of European countries use similar reporting systems for breast FNAC (C1-C5), in keeping with European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, although some still prefer descriptive reporting only. When triple assessment is concordant, final treatment may proceed on the basis of FNAC, without a tissue biopsy. ER and PR assessment can be done safely on FNAC material. However, not all institutions may have expertise in doing this. HER-2 protein expression on direct cytological preparations is insufficiently reliable for clinical use, although its use for FISH is possible, if expertise is available. The majority of participants practise a degree of one-stop diagnosis with a cytopathologist present in the outpatient clinic. Formal recognition of the importance of the time spent outside the laboratory, both for cytopathologist and cytotechnologist, is necessary in order to ensure appropriate resourcing. The use of core biopsy (CB) has increased, although not always for evidence-based reasons. CB and FNAC are not mutually exclusive. FNAC should be used in diagnosis of benign, symptomatic lesions and CB in microcalcifications, suspicious FNAC findings and malignancies where radiology cannot guarantee stromal invasion. Keywords: breast cancer, breast diagnosis, breast management, breast cytology, FNA, core biopsy Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) has been extensively used for many years in the diagnosis of breast lesions, but its use has gradually been reduced in many screening programmes because of its controversial inadequate rates and suboptimal accuracy in inexperienced hands. 1-3

EGFR mutations correlate with improved clinical outcome whereas KRAS mutations are associated with lack of response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) is being increasingly used in the management of NSCLC. Co-amplification at lower denaturation temperature (COLD)–polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (COLD-PCR) is a sensitive assay for the detection of genetic mutations in solid tumours. This study assessed the feasibility of using COLD-PCR to screen for EGFR and KRAS mutations in cytology samples obtained by EBUS-TBNA in routine clinical practice. Samples obtained from NSCLC patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA were evaluated according to our standard clinical protocols. DNA extracted from these samples was subjected to COLD-PCR to amplify exons 18–21 of EGFR and exons two and three of KRAS followed by direct sequencing. Mutation analysis was performed in 131 of 132 (99.3%) NSCLC patients (70F/62M) with confirmed lymph node metastases (94/132 (71.2%) adenocarcinoma; 17/132 (12.8%) squamous cell; 2/132 (0.15%) large cell neuroendocrine; 1/132 (0.07%) large cell carcinoma; 18/132 (13.6%) NSCL-not otherwise specified (NOS)). Molecular analysis of all EGFR and KRAS target sequences was achieved in 126 of 132 (95.5%) and 130 of 132 (98.4%) of cases respectively. EGFR mutations were identified in 13 (10.5%) of fully evaluated cases (11 in adenocarcinoma and two in NSCLC-NOS) including two novel mutations. KRAS mutations were identified in 23 (17.5%) of fully analysed patient samples (18 adenocarcinoma and five NSCLC-NOS). We conclude that EBUS-TBNA of lymph nodes infiltrated by NSCLC can provide sufficient tumour material for EGFR and KRAS mutation analysis in most patients, and that COLD-PCR and sequencing is a robust screening assay for EGFR and KRAS mutation analysis in this clinical context.

European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytologyThe current paper presents an annex in the second edition of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. It provides guidance on how to make a satisfactory conventional Pap smear or a liquid-based cytology (LBC) sample. Practitioners taking samples for cytology should first explain to the woman the purpose, the procedure and how the result will be communicated. Three sampling methods are considered as acceptable for preparing conventional Pap smears: (i) the cervical broom; (ii) the combination of a spatula and an endocervical brush; and (iii) the extended tip spatula. Smear takers should take care to sample the entire circumference of the transformation zone, to quickly spread the cellular material over a glass slide, and to fix the preparation within a few seconds to avoid drying artefacts. According to local guidelines, one of these three methods may be preferred. Sampling with a cotton tip applicator is inappropriate. Similar procedures should be followed for sampling cells for LBC, but only plastic devices may be used. The collected cells should be quickly transferred into a vial with fixative liquid according to the instructions of the manufacturer of the LBC system. Subsequently, the slide or vial and the completed request form are sent to the laboratory for cytological interpretation.