Checklists (now referred to as case summaries) have been used for educational and quality improvement purposes in surgical pathology reporting of cancer cases for a number of years, with published protocols, checklists, and structured reports developed by many societies such as the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology, the College of American Pathologists (CAP), and The Royal College of Pathologists of the United Kingdom. The adoption of checklists designed to improve the quality of patient care is also gaining momentum in various clinical settings, including perioperative suites, emergency departments, and intensive care units. 1,2 In pathology, the use of checklists or structured reporting for histopathologic findings in cancer resection cases has been shown to produce sustained improvement in reporting of critical data elements. 3 However, development, maintenance, dissemination, and revision of such checklists can be labor intensive and costly because the documents must be continuously reviewed and updated as medical knowledge and practices change. This review process is especially important when adherence to pathology reporting protocols is included as a standard for accreditation, as by the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons in the accreditation of cancer programs. The ‘‘Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Pheochromocytomas and Extra-adrenal Paragangliomas,’’ 4 published in this issue of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, represents a ‘‘gold standard’’ approach to reporting of these rare neoplasms based on expert opinion from a distinguished international group of pathologists and endocrinologists. However, it is not an official protocol of the CAP. The CAP cancer protocols are developed by the CAP Cancer Committee and multidisciplinary Cancer Protocol Review Panels, which include pathologists from various practice settings (academics, community practice, and large reference laboratories), surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. Protocols undergo a stringent review process that includes posting for public comment, followed by review of all comments by the CAP Cancer Committee, with final revisions to the protocol made in response to this feedback. New cancer protocols officially endorsed by the CAP are developed in response to needs from the larger oncology community. Because the protocol portfolio has matured over the years since the publication of the first CAP cancer checklists in 1986 5 , new protocols are often developed in response to changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging manual. For example, at the time of this writing a new CAP cancer protocol for uterine sarcomas is in the final stages of development in response to a separate staging schema for this tumor type as adopted by the F ´ ederation Internationale de Gyn ´