Tuesday, April 28, 2026, 12:00 PM–1:00 PM ET
Discover how next-day comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is possible with the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus on the Genexus System—delivering both speed and accuracy.
Webinar presenters Jane Bayani, MHSc, PhD, Assistant Professor and Co-Director, Diagnostic Development, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Canada, and Nicola Normanno, MD, Scientific Director, IRCCS Romagnolo Institute for the Study of Tumors, Italy, and Morten Grauslund, PhD, Molecular Biologist, Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet/Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY
CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. The webinar is made possible by a special educational grant from Thermo Fisher Scientific. For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic applications.
Thursday, April 30, 2026, 11:00 AM–12:00 PM ET
Hear an expert discuss how Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) is utilizing
the oncoReveal® Nexus 21-gene panel to redefine turnaround time and actionable insights
in cancer care. Dr. Ewalt shares a perceptive look at the clinical need for rapid, front-line NGS sequencing, and how a unique, purpose built targeted NGS panel (Pillar Biosciences’ oncoReveal Nexus 21 gene Panel) was developed, validated and implemented clinically by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK-REACT) to complement their current comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) approach.
Webinar presenter Mark Ewalt, MD, Associate Medical Director for Laboratory Operations for Diagnostic Molecular Pathology in the Molecular Diagnostics Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, MSKCC.
Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY
CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. The webinar is made possible by a special educational grant from Pillar Biosciences.
Thursday, May 28, 2026, 1:00–2:00 PM ET
This session is designed to improve understanding and application of recent updates to synoptic pathology reporting protocols such as the latest Reporting Template for Reporting Results of Biomarker Testing of Specimens from Patients with Carcinoma of the Breast. These changes reflect evolving clinical guidelines that directly influence diagnostic accuracy and treatment selection in breast cancer care.
Webinar presenters Thaer Khoury, MD, FCAP, Chair, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Cente, and Colin Murphy, CEO of mTuitive.
Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY
March 2014—A wide-ranging set of recommended health information technology safety practices recently issued by the Department of Health and Human Services is likely to accentuate the essential role that pathologists and laboratory leaders play in minimizing the adverse consequences of health IT.
March 2014—Implementation of meaningful use and related federal regulations has spurred widespread adoption of the electronic health record, and that’s a game-changer. Every one of us will need to have competence in clinical informatics, to varying degrees.
March 2014—Q. What are the actionable mutations in melanoma that warrant routine molecular testing? Who should be tested, and what specimen should be tested? Is there a role for stat BRAF testing and for next-generation sequencing?
March 2014—Patient-access rule creates opportunities, costs for labs: A long-awaited Department of Health and Human Services rule that requires laboratories to provide completed test reports to patients upon request may strengthen the relationship patients have with their pathologists, but also will pose another compliance burden for labs in many states.
March 2014—Traditional urinalysis is messy. It’s tedious. It’s prone to variability. It’s nicknamed the “ugly stepchild” of the laboratory. Many are quick to note that it’s just a screening tool—with an emphasis on “just.” But in recent years, urinalysis has been quietly tiptoeing into a new era.
March 2014—If you had a colleague who was brilliant, experienced, and insightful, but who for some reason didn’t volunteer helpful information, you might agree with the assessment of Michael Laposata, MD, PhD: “If you only wait for people to ask you a question, that’s crazy.”
February 2014—Utility companies can generate electricity in many ways—fossil fuel, nuclear reaction, solar panel, wind turbine. Which power source is preferable depends on the circumstances and the work that needs to be done. Generating optimal laboratory utilization is much the same. Providing an efficient and effective combination of tests for diagnosing hematologic neoplasms requires a different approach from achieving appropriate repeat ordering of chemistry tests in ICU patients. Delivering only the necessary blood components to cardiovascular surgery patients may take different tactics from curbing orders of expensive molecular genetic send-out tests.
February 2014—For “quants”—people who love all things numeric or algorithmic—information technology is its own reason for being. But for those with responsibility for clinical outcomes and the bottom line in the clinical laboratory, IT is much, much more. Innovative uses of IT are providing myriad new solutions with measurable paybacks in quality improvement and cost reduction.
February 2014—Recalling a reagent is about more than just removing a product from laboratory shelves. It’s about retracting test results and thus affecting diagnoses and treatment plans. It’s about questioning patient outcomes and revisiting past decisions. “So much of what laboratories do is central to making a diagnosis and determining treatment,” says John Harbour, MD, regional medical director of HealthPartners Laboratories, medical director of the Bon Secours St. Mary’s Hospital Laboratory, and president of Monument Pathologists Inc., Richmond, Va.
February 2014—The Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium in 2009 issued a statement on human papillomavirus DNA test utilization that was published in multiple journals. This statement was a concise summary of the clinical indications for high-risk or oncogenic HPV testing based on guidelines of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the American Cancer Society published from 2002 through 2007. These organizations have since published newer consensus guidelines addressing HPV testing, and the previous summary no longer reflects current screening and management guidelines.
