International Perspectives in Cytology was launched in early 2019 with the goal of connecting members of the global cytopathology community as well as providing Cancer Cytopathology readers with a better understanding of the role of cytopathology across the world.1 Although many aspects of cytopathology are similar, the adoption of different technologies and programs in different clinical settings can vary greatly and impact the practice of cytopathology in different countries. For the past several years, the International Molecular Cytopathology Meeting, held annually in Naples, Italy, has focused on providing a global perspective regarding the evolution of molecular pathology in the field of cytopathology with updates on cytological and molecular classifications and novel research.2, 3 In this issue of Cancer Cytopathology, we have presented a series of articles from the eighth meeting, held in December 2019, that focused on the similarities between and the unique practices of lung cancer molecular cytopathology in Europe and the United States, and offered a diverse and international perspective concerning the practice of molecular cytopathology. Over the last 2 decades, the identification of oncogenic drivers in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has revolutionized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in molecularly selected subgroups of patients with advanced NSCLC. The drug development and approval process for therapeutic targets has rapidly transformed into an accelerated program with the use of innovative and adaptive study designs and expedited regulatory approval. Recent oncogenic drivers, including RET rearrangements and MET exon 14 skipping mutations, have been included as therapeutic targets for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, in addition to the well-established EGFR and BRAF mutations, ALK and ROS1 rearrangements, and PD-L1 expression, to expand the list of druggable genetic aberrations.4 Predictive molecular testing in pathology and, more specifically, cytopathology, varies from a centralized model in some countries within Europe to a more decentralized model as in the United States. The first article in the series, by Hofman et al, focused on tissue and liquid biopsy testing in patients with NSCLC, taking us through the evolution of molecular pathology test implementation in France from the initial establishment of a national network of molecular genetic centers for cancer to test a limited number of genes by targeted polymerase chain reaction assays, to a second phase with the development of next-generation sequencing technology and all laboratories in France having access to molecular testing, to the more recent implementation of a systematic sequencing approach in which large-panel molecular tests currently are being centralized to a limited number of molecular genetic centers.5 The second article by Siemanowski et al described the practice of routine molecular pathology diagnostics in Germany.6 The authors have highlighted the German model of central comprehensive molecular testing by the Network Genomic Medicine Lung Cancer and the delivery of decentralized patient care at all German comprehensive cancer centers. The article discussed internal quality control, laboratory accreditation, and quality assurance programs and focused specifically on testing for gene fusions in patients with lung cancer.6 The third article by Vigliar et al described predictive molecular testing in Italy, where the universal health care system currently provides a decentralized model, with local laboratories performing in-house molecular testing based on guidelines from the Italian Society of Anatomic Pathology and Diagnostic Cytopathology and the Italian Division of the International Academy of Pathology.7 The final review article by VanderLaan and Roy-Chowdhuri explored the current state of NSCLC molecular testing in the United States, and focused on biomarkers that currently are used in the therapeutic approach for these patients and the promise of novel, unconventional, cytologic “liquid biopsy” substrates that potentially can be incorporated into testing paradigms.8 The final strokes to this special series were added by a commentary from Rossi et al.9 The authors concluded with a philosophical discussion of the “ideal” specimen and discussed how cytology and surgical specimens coexist in an alternative and parallel world, with expanding possibilities and opportunities for molecular pathology. No specific funding was disclosed. The authors made no disclosures.