Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib are standard-of-care for first-line treatment of EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These drugs have a proven benefit in terms of higher response rate, delaying progression and improvement of quality of life over palliative platinum-based chemotherapy. The most common adverse events (AEs) are gastrointestinal (GI) (diarrhoea and stomatitis/mucositis) and cutaneous (rash, dry skin and paronychia). These are usually mild, but if they become moderate or severe, they can have a negative impact on the patient's quality of life (QOL) and lead to dose modifications or drug discontinuation. Appropriate management of AEs, including prophylactic measures, supportive medications, treatment delays and dose reductions, is essential. A consensus meeting of a UK-based multidisciplinary panel composed of medical and clinical oncologists with a special interest in lung cancer, dermatologists, gastroenterologists, lung cancer nurse specialists and oncology pharmacists was held to develop guidelines on prevention and management of cutaneous (rash, dry skin and paronychia) and GI (diarrhoea, stomatitis and mucositis) AEs associated with the administration of EGFR-TKIs. These guidelines detail supportive measures, treatment delays and dose reductions for EGFR-TKIs. Although the focus of the guidelines is to support healthcare professionals in UK clinical practice, it is anticipated that the management strategies proposed will also be applicable in non-UK settings.

A comprehensive pathological report is essential for optimal patient management, cancer staging and prognostication. In many countries, proforma reports are used but these vary in their content. The International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR) is an alliance formed by the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, the Royal College of Pathologists of the United Kingdom, the College of American Pathologists, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the European Society of Pathology, with the aim of developing an evidence-based reporting data set for each cancer site. This will reduce the global burden of cancer data set development and reduplication of effort by different international institutions that commission, publish and maintain standardised cancer reporting data sets. The resultant standardisation of cancer reporting will benefit not only those countries directly involved in the collaboration but also others not in a position to develop their own data sets. We describe the development of a cancer data set by the ICCR expert panel for the reporting of primary ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal carcinoma and present the 'required' and 'recommended' elements to be included in the report with an explanatory commentary. This data set encompasses the recent International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists staging system for these neoplasms and the updated World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours of the Female Reproductive Organs. The data set also addresses issues about site assignment of the primary tumour in high-grade serous carcinomas and proposes a scoring system for the assessment of tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The widespread implementation of this data set will facilitate consistent and accurate data collection, comparison of epidemiological and pathological parameters between different populations, facilitate research and hopefully will result in improved patient management.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate targeted therapy is very effective in patients with advanced NSCLC who have specific genetic alterations. Therefore, it is important to test tumor tissue from patients with advanced NSCLC to determine whether they have genetic alterations that make them candidates for specific targeted therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe the different testing methods currently available for determining whether patients have genetic alterations in the 2 most commonly actionable genetic alterations, notably anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

Flow cytometric (FC) detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma (MM) is prognostic and predictive of response to therapy. Therefore, standardization of FC MM MRD testing is vital to ensure better and uniform assessment of response to therapy and clinical prognostication. The International Clinical Cytometry Society and European Society for Clinical Cell Analysis, recognizing the need for standardized FC approaches, organized a working group to develop consensus guidelines on good clinical practice in FC MM MRD. Consensus guidelines are presented for specimen quality, staining process, reagent combinations, and the data acquisition process, all key factors in achieving high quality FC MM MRD testing.

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.