The American Thyroid Association appointed a Task Force of experts to revise the original Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: Management Guidelines of the American Thyroid Association.

The Japanese guidelines for the testing of KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer have been used for the past 5 years. However, new findings of RAS (KRAS/NRAS) mutations that can further predict the therapeutic effects of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody therapy necessitated a revision of the guidelines. The revised guidelines included the following five basic requirements for RAS mutation testing to highlight a patient group in which anti-EGFR antibody therapy may be ineffective: First, anti-EGFR antibody therapy may not offer survival benefit and/or tumor shrinkage to patients with expanded RAS mutations. Thus, current methods to detect KRAS exon 2 (codons 12 and 13) mutations are insufficient for selecting appropriate candidates for this therapy. Additional testing of extended KRAS/NRAS mutations is recommended. Second, repeated tests are not required for the detection; tissue materials of either primary or metastatic lesions are applicable for RAS mutation testing. Evaluating RAS mutations prior to anti-EGFR antibody therapy is recommended. Third, direct sequencing with manual dissection or allele-specific PCR-based methods is currently applicable for RAS mutation testing. Fourth, thinly sliced sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks are applicable for RAS mutation testing. One section stained with H&E should be provided to histologically determine whether the tissue contains sufficient amount of tumor cells for testing. Finally, RAS mutation testing must be performed in laboratories with appropriate testing procedures and specimen management practices.

In Spain medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) would not exceed 80 new cases per year and less than half of them would be good candidates for systemic treatment with novel agents.

This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. The initial assessment is the collection of a family history of cancers and premalignant gastrointestinal conditions and should provide enough information to develop a preliminary determination of the risk of a familial predisposition to cancer. Age at diagnosis and lineage (maternal and/or paternal) should be documented for all diagnoses, especially in first- and second-degree relatives. When indicated, genetic testing for a germline mutation should be done on the most informative candidate(s) identified through the family history evaluation and/or tumor analysis to confirm a diagnosis and allow for predictive testing of at-risk relatives. Genetic testing should be conducted in the context of pre- and post-test genetic counseling to ensure the patient's informed decision making. Patients who meet clinical criteria for a syndrome as well as those with identified pathogenic germline mutations should receive appropriate surveillance measures in order to minimize their overall risk of developing syndrome-specific cancers. This guideline specifically discusses genetic testing and management of Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, Cowden syndrome, serrated (hyperplastic) polyposis syndrome, hereditary pancreatic cancer, and hereditary gastric cancer.

Major heterogeneity between laboratories in flow cytometry (FC) minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in multiple myeloma (MM) must be overcome. Cytometry societies such as the International Clinical Cytometry Society and the European Society for Clinical Cell Analysis recognize a strong need to establish minimally acceptable requirements and recommendations to perform such complex testing.

During the last 30 years many advances have been made in kidney tumor pathology. In 1981, 9 entities were recognized in the WHO Classification. In the latest classification of 2004, 50 different types have been recognized. Additional tumor entities have been described since and a wide variety of prognostic parameters have been investigated with variable success; however, much attention has centered upon the importance of features relating to both stage and grade. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) recommends after consensus conferences the development of reporting guidelines, which have been adopted worldwide ISUP undertook to review all aspects of the pathology of adult renal malignancy through an international consensus conference to be held in 2012. As in the past, participation in this consensus conference was restricted to acknowledged experts in the field.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) overexpression is present in approximately 15% of early invasive breast cancers, and is an important predictive and prognostic marker. The substantial benefits achieved with anti-HER2 targeted therapies in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have emphasised the need for accurate assessment of HER2 status. Current data indicate that HER2 test accuracy improved following previous publication of guidelines and the implementation of an external quality assessment scheme with a decline in false-positive and false-negative rates. This paper provides an update of the guidelines for HER2 testing in the UK. The aim is to further improve the analytical validity and clinical utility of HER2 testing by providing guidelines of test performance parameters, and recommendations on the postanalytical interpretation of test results. HER2 status should be determined in all newly diagnosed and recurrent breast cancers. Testing involves immunohistochemistry with >10% complete strong membrane staining defining a positive status. In situ hybridisation, either fluorescent or bright field chromogenic, is used either upfront or in immunohistochemistry borderline cases to detect the presence of HER2 gene amplification. Situations where repeat HER2 testing is advised are outlined and the impact of genetic heterogeneity is discussed. Strict quality control and external quality assurance of validated assays are essential. Testing laboratories should perform ongoing competency assessment and proficiency tests and ensure the reliability and accuracy of the assay. Pathologists, oncologists and surgeons involved in test interpretation and clinical use should adhere to published guidelines and maintain accurate performance and consistent interpretation of test results.

To provide recommendations on prevention, screening, genetics, treatment, and management for people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations.

The 2012 consensus conference of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) has formulated recommendations on classification, prognostic factors and staging as well as immunohistochemistry and molecular pathology of renal tumors. Agreement was reached on the recognition of five new tumor entities: tubulocystic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), acquired cystic kidney disease-associated RCC, clear cell (tubulo) papillary RCC, microphthalmia transcription factor family RCC, in particular t(6;11) RCC and hereditary leiomyomatosis-associated RCC. In addition three rare forms of carcinoma were considered as emerging or provisional entities: thyroid-like follicular RCC, succinate dehydrogenase B deficiency-associated RCC and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocation RCC. In the new ISUP Vancouver classification, modifications to the existing 2004 World Health Organization (WHO) specifications are also suggested. Tumor morphology, a differentiation between sarcomatoid and rhabdoid and tumor necrosis were emphasized as being significant prognostic parameters for RCC. The consensus ISUP grading system assigns clear cell and papillary RCCs to grades 1-3 due to nucleolar prominence and grade 4 is reserved for cases with extreme nuclear pleomorphism, sarcomatoid and/or rhabdoid differentiation. Furthermore, consensus guidelines were established for the preparation of samples. For example, agreement was also reached that renal sinus invasion is diagnosed when the tumor is in direct contact with the fatty tissue or loose connective tissue of the sinus (intrarenal peripelvic fat) or when endothelialized cavities within the renal sinus are invaded by the tumor, independent of the size. The importance of biomarkers for the diagnostics or prognosis of renal tumors was also emphasized and marker profiles were formulated for use in specific differential diagnostics.

The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider's best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC "approve" or "endorse" any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

Publication of this consensus statement is a joint initiative of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM), intended to revise and update the diagnostic and treatment recommendations published 2 years ago on biomarker use and the management of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC), thereby providing an opportunity to improve healthcare efficiency and resource use in these patients. This expert group recommends testing for KRAS and NRAS status in all patients with metastatic CRC being considered for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapy, as this type of treatment should only be used in patients not harbouring mutations in these genes. In contrast, testing for BRAF, EGFR, PI3K and PTEN mutation status is not necessary for therapeutic decision making, so does not need to be done routinely.

The subcommittee on scrotal imaging, appointed by the board of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), have produced guidelines on imaging and follow-up in testicular microlithiasis (TML).

Women with germline mutations in the cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 or BRCA2, associated with Hereditary Breast & Ovarian Cancer syndrome, have up to an 85% lifetime risk of breast cancer and up to a 46% lifetime risk of ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancers. Similarly, women with mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, associated with the Lynch/Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (HNPCC) syndrome, have up to a 40-60% lifetime risk of both endometrial and colorectal cancers as well as a 9-12% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Mutations in other genes including TP53, PTEN, and STK11 are responsible for hereditary syndromes associated with gynecologic, breast, and other cancers. Evaluation of the likelihood of a patient having one of these gynecologic cancer predisposition syndromes enables physicians to provide individualized assessments of cancer risk, as well as the opportunity to provide tailored screening and prevention strategies such as surveillance, chemoprevention, and prophylactic surgery that may reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with these syndromes. Evaluation for the presence of a hereditary cancer syndrome is a process that includes assessment of clinical and tumor characteristics, education and counseling conducted by a provider with expertise in cancer genetics, and may include genetic testing after appropriate consent is obtained. This commentary provides guidance on identification of patients who may benefit from assessment for the presence of a hereditary breast and/or gynecologic cancer syndrome.

During the past few years, several genetic aberrations that may contribute to increased risks for development of breast and/or ovarian cancers have been identified. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian focus specifically on the assessment of genetic mutations in BRCA1/BRCA2, TP53, and PTEN, and recommend approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these mutations. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines includes recommendations regarding diagnostic criteria and management of patients with Cowden Syndrome/PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.

The diagnostic work-up and treatment of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) has undergone major recent advances and new methods are currently introduced into the clinic. An update of the WHO classification has resulted in a new nomenclature dividing NENs into neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) including G1 (Ki67 index ≤ 2%) and G2 (Ki67 index 3-20%) tumours and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) with Ki67 index > 20%, G3. Aim. These Nordic guidelines summarise the Nordic Neuroendocrine Tumour Group's current view on how to diagnose and treat NEN-patients and are meant to be useful in the daily practice for clinicians handling these patients.

The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: Figure 1 provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; Figure 2 illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; Figures 3,4,5,6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; Table 10 provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and Table 12 lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.

The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: Figure 1 provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; Figure 2 illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; Figures 3-6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; Table 10 provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and Table 12 lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.