The UEMS Section/Board of Pathology, chapter 6: requirement for recognition of postgraduate training in pathology: a presentation of the Paris document

After more than five years discussion the UEMS Section/Board of Pathology agreed a specification of requirements for recognition of post-graduate training in pathology, which is the key to the future of our discipline. The document published here, subject to ratification by UEMS Council, was voted on and accepted by the Pathology Board at the UEMS Paris meeting of 9 June 2012. Cytopathology is regarded as integral part of pathology: in general, training in pathology takes five years and maintains a common trunk of four (minimum three) years where surgical pathology, autopsy pathology and basic knowledge of neuropathology, dermatopathology and cytopathology are adequately trained and assessed. Training in so-called areas of interests covers the remaining 1224 months. Certificates of advanced level of competence remain within the authority of national boards. As senior members of its Executive Board, we believe that the European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) should take responsibility for establishing 1) standards in the quality of cytopathology training, 2) training guidelines and qualification for advanced levels of competence in cytopathology, 3) manpower planning, 4) tutorials for pathologists and cytotechnologists and 4) standards of cytotechnologist training

Overexpression of the drug resistance-associated protein metallothionein does not correlate with response of sarcomas to isolated limb perfusion treatment

Hyperthermic isolated limb perfusion with TNF-α and melphalan (HILP-TM) achieves high response rates in sarcomas. Melphalan resistance was previously reported to be associated with overexpression of metallothioneins (MTs). Objective of this study was to investigate the influence of MT expression on tumor responses in HILP-TM-treated soft tissue (STSs) and bone sarcomas (BS). In primary biopsies of 41 HILP-TM-treated sarcomas (37 STSs and 4 BS), MT expression was assessed by an immunoreactive score. The pathologic response to HILP-TM was quantified in the corresponding tumor resection specimens. We studied the association of MT-IRS between histological regression (responder >90%, or non-responder ≤90% regression), tumor proliferation, and other clinico-pathological parameters. MT expression was found in 70.7% (N = 29) of tumors (high 12.2%, moderate 19.5%, and low 39.0%). After HILP-TM, 20 cases (48.8%) were categorized as “responders” and 21 (51.2%) as “non-responders.” Six “responders” (14.6%) presented with complete regression. MT expression positively correlated with tumor proliferation but not with HILP-TM. HILP-TM showed a favorable response in a high rate of sarcomas. Although MT overexpression was observed in this cohort of sarcomas, the immunohistochemical MT status was not predictive of the tumor response after HILP-TM treatment