In this issue of Cancer Cytopathology, Kopp et al 1 from the Mayo Clinic show how properly trained cytotechnologists can go outside their traditional scope of practice to aid the pathologist in the making of tissue microarrays (TMAs) for research. As background, at the Mayo Clinic, demands on pathologists' time have been increasing, and this is associated with workforce shortages, increasing specimen complexity and interpretation requirements, and decreased reimbursement. As such, important research has been substantially postponed because up to the present, pathologists have been completely responsible for the making of TMAs. TMAs are composite specimens in which small sections (donor cores) from many different paraffin blocks and/or cases are placed into a single block that can then be used to test reagents against multiple samples simultaneously. TMAs are, therefore, very useful in determining the operating characteristics of immunohistochemical and molecular tests. However, to make an optimal TMA, the proper tissue and area within that tissue need to be selected from each case. This selection process means not only that the tissue containing the best, or most representative, target area (eg, the neoplasm or infectious organism) needs to be appropriately identified but also that the selected areas must be free of technical artifacts and other confounding features. This process requires significant morphologic knowledge and skill and diligent screening of the samples under consideration. In this study, cytotechnologists, under the supervision of pathologists, reviewed the study design to understand the research goals for each TMA construction, reviewed the glass slides of the target tissues, and selected the most appropriate blocks for inclusion in the TMA. They then reviewed blocks and slides together to identify the best blocks and areas within the blocks from which the donor cores would be taken. Cytotechnologists then scored the TMA cores for immunohistochemical results. Scoring included the reactivity in the invasive or in situ tumor, stroma, and benign tissues; the type of staining (nuclear, cytoplasmic, or membranous); the quantity of staining (the percentage of cells) and/or the staining intensity; and so forth as needed for each individual TMA research objective. The results of the study showed that appropriately trained cytotechnologists completed all of these tasks successfully. In either complete or percentage spot checks by supervising pathologists, disagreements on tissue selection or scoring were well within the ranges expected from interpathologist correlations and were associated with expected areas of subjective disagreement, such as the best area for obtaining donor cores or stain intensity. Interestingly, cytotechnologists actually performed better at some aspects of the process, most notably in technical assessments of the paraffin block material. The authors concluded their work by noting that research requiring TMAs that had been on hold for years because of a lack of pathologist time wa...