In 2002 the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) convened a panel of breast cancer experts and patient advocates to develop consensus recommendations for diagnosing breast cancer in countries with limited resources. The panel agreed on the need for a pathologic diagnosis, based on microscopic evaluation of tissue specimens, before initiating breast cancer treatment. The panel discussed options for pathologic diagnosis (fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core needle biopsy, and surgical biopsy) and concluded that the choice among these methods should be based on available tools and expertise. Correlation of pathology, clinical, and imaging findings was emphasized. A 2005 BHGI panel reaffirmed these recommendations and additionally stratified diagnostic and pathology methods into four levels--basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal--from lowest to highest resources. The minimal requirements (basic level) include a history, clinical breast examination, tissue diagnosis, and medical record keeping. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy was recognized as the least expensive reliable method of tissue sampling, and the need for comparing its clinical usefulness with that of core needle biopsy in the limited-resource setting was emphasized. Increasing resources (limited level) may enable diagnostic breast imaging (ultrasound +/- mammography), use of tests to evaluate for metastases, limited image-guided sampling, and hormone receptor testing. With more resources (enhanced level), diagnostic mammography, bone scanning, and an onsite cytologist may be possible. Mass screening mammography is introduced at the maximal-resource level. At all levels, increasing breast cancer awareness, diagnosing breast cancer at an early stage, training individuals to perform and interpret breast biopsies, and collecting statistics about breast cancer, resources, and competing priorities may improve breast cancer outcomes in countries with limited resources. Expertise in pathology was reaffirmed to be a key requirement for ensuring reliable diagnostic findings. Several approaches were again proposed for improving breast pathology, including training pathologists, establishing pathology services in centralized facilities, and organizing international pathology services.

The management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has evolved very rapidly in the last years. A national consensus meeting was therefore organized in order to identify the optimal management procedures for patients with GIST in localized and advanced stages.

The guidelines 'Melanoma' (3rd revision) are evidence-based in nature. A number of outcomes are summarised in this article. Dermatoscopy deserves a standard role in the clinical diagnosis of pigmented skin abnormalities. Pathological findings from a diagnostic excision should be recorded meticulously to include anatomical localisation, type of intervention used, excision margin, diagnosis, Breslow thickness, and the completeness of the removal. The sentinel node procedure should be reserved for patients who want to be as informed as possible about their prognosis. The procedure is not considered a part of standard diagnosis. Sentinel node assessment should include stains for specific markers and should be conducted in multiple sections. The following margins of non-affected skin are recommended for therapeutic re-excision of melanoma: in situ melanoma, 0.5 cm; Breslow thickness < or = 2 mm, 1 cm; Breslow thickness > 2 mm, 2 cm. Pathological assessment of a re-excised specimen depends on the completeness of the first excision. Systematic adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma is not recommended outside the context of a clinical study. Patients with metastatic melanoma are preferably treated within a clinical study. Outside of a clinical study, these patients should be treated with dacarbazine. There is no evidence to suggest that survival is improved by frequent follow-up. However, follow-up can be a useful way to meet the information needs of patients and care requirements for physicians.