AbstractMitotic count (MC) is an important prognostic indicator in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Though MC evaluation was initially proposed in 50 HPFs, recent international guidelines recommend that MC be performed on 5 mm² because HPFs may have different areas depending on the ocular field number (FN) of the utilized light microscope. Performing MC on different areas leads to a non-standardized evaluation and erroneous risk stratification. The aim of the study was to audit real-life MC practices with special emphasis on possible risk stratification errors. A survey was administered to Italian pathologists to evaluate the following: method used for MC (5 mm² versus 50 HPF); FN of the light microscope; prognostic scheme for risk stratification. Based on the results of the survey, 100 GISTs (25/risk class using Miettinen prognostic scheme) were retrieved and MC performed using 5 mm² versus the corresponding mm² area sizes of 50 HPFs with variable FNs (18, 20, 22). The survey demonstrated that the majority of pathologists (64.5%) use 50 HPFs with various FNs leading to excessive area size. The most frequently used prognostic scheme is that by Miettinen. Using this prognostic scheme and counting mitoses in 5 mm² versus 50 HPFs with FNs 18, 20 and 22, a change in risk class was identified ranging from 10 to 41%, depending on FN. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that MC is still frequently performed on 50 HPF, with area sizes exceeding the specified 5 mm² by far.