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
January 2016—The CAP has 30 official liaisons to various organizations who attend scientific meetings or designate others to do so. They report to the Standards Committee, which reports to the Council on Scientific Affairs. We periodically publish bits of what the CAP’s outbound liaisons hear and see in their liaison roles.
January 2016—There is a reason why rigorous studies are done to prove even the seemingly apparent benefits of advanced techniques. Sometimes comparisons turn up unexpected findings, as demonstrated by two selected infectious disease abstracts about real-time PCR presented at the Nov. 5–7, 2015 meeting of the Association for Molecular Pathology. Even so, both abstracts show the value of PCR testing.
January 2016—A sophisticated understanding of the advantages and drawbacks of both familiar and advanced assays can provide great patient benefit, as two talks in a session on solid tumor case studies at the Nov. 5–7, 2015 meeting of the Association for Molecular Pathology showed.
January 2016—When Kimberle Chapin, MD, learned in 2014 that Lifespan’s urologists in Rhode Island wanted to begin screening transrectal prostate needle biopsy specimens for fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli, her first reaction was: “What?”
January 2016—Anal cancer incidence is on the rise in North America with rates of both invasive and in situ squamous carcinomas of the anus increasing sharply over the past several decades. While women have the highest overall likelihood of developing anal carcinomas, certain male subpopulations (namely men who have sex with men and those who are HIV positive) are at a dramatically increased risk of developing squamous precursors and carcinomas of the anal canal.
January 2016—Genomic sequencing of tumors can be used clinically to identify acquired somatic mutations in cancer-related genes. In an era of personalized medicine, tumor-specific mutational status can be used to acquire prognostic information and guide molecular targeted therapies. However, many patients also have germline variants in these genes, which not only can make it difficult to identify the tumor-specific somatic mutations, but may also affect the biological mechanism of tumorigenesis.
January 2015—As the trend in cloud computing continues, in part as a way to reduce capital investment costs, laboratory decision-makers must learn the nuances of how to vet this type of vendor and negotiate software-as-a-service agreements. Without this knowledge, they risk entering into a less-than-satisfactory contractual arrangement that can cost them money, industry experts say.
January 2016—Uterine leiomyosarcomas are rare malignant tumors with a poor prognosis, while leiomyomas are common benign tumors unrelated to their malignant counterparts. Diagnostic features commonly present in leiomyosarcoma include cytologic atypia, high mitotic index, and a sarcoma-specific geographic cell death designated as tumor cell necrosis (TCN).
January 2016—The current recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to screen baby boomers for hepatitis C virus may cause stress on laboratory resources. Is this the most prudent way to capture those individuals who will progress to liver cancer? Current data/literature suggest that 80 percent of those who may screen positive will not progress to cancer but will eliminate the virus on their own.
January 2016—A logical delta check for identifying erroneous blood cell count results: Regulations require that hospitals have a quality management plan that benchmarks key indicators of quality performance. One such indicator is a delta check, which is a broad quality control for preanalytic and analytic errors that identifies significant variation in a patient’s present lab result when compared with the patient’s previous result for the same test.
