The year 1992 saw the birth of a new international organization: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC), devoted to bridging the gap between cytopathology and surgical pathology. Having requested affiliation with USCAP, the fledgling organization has already had an impact at the IAP meetings in Madrid (1992) and Hong Kong (1994). Its first USCAP participation in San Francisco (1994) was devoted to exploring the differences and similarities between cytopathology and surgical pathology, particularly the history of aspiration biopsy (Scandinavian and U.S. Schools), intraoperative consultations (frozen sections, imprints), proliferative breast disease, and precancerous conditions of the cervix. In 1995, PSC's scientific session at the Toronto meeting of USCAP will focus on cytologic pitfalls encompassing those of serous fluids, breast aspirates, respiratory specimens, and cervico-vaginal smears.
From the start, it has been clear that the similarities between cytopathology and surgical pathology outweigh the differences so much so that the boundaries between the two subspecialties are blurred of late. But it took a new forum, this time a companion meeting of USCAP, for pathologists, to grasp how much the practice of cytopathology and surgical pathology have in common. So, I whipped up a dusty copy of one of my old editorials (rejected for publication) entitled "FNA is piercing the paraffin curtain" and pondered over the changes that have occurred in cytopathology over the past 10 years. The flamboyant title notwithstanding, I was probably correct that FNA helped to bridge the gap between cytopathology and surgical pathology. It had to do more with the melting than with the piercing of the paraffin barrier, however, if any conflict existed between cytopathology and surgical pathology it is rapidly disappearing. The blending of the