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 2017—The language of blood banking experts, as they talk about irradiators, transfers easily to a car dealership. How reliable are the newer models? Are you willing to replace it every 10 years or so? Do you keep running it until it dies? What parts are likely to burn out? What will repairs run? And then the word “terrorism” pops up.
March 2017—Perhaps unusually for news about clinical diagnostics research, an article in the Feb. 7 issue of JAMA created a mild stir with findings that HbA1c results in patients with sickle cell trait, the most common hemoglobin variant in the U.S., may systematically underestimate past glycemia (Lacy ME, et al. 317[5]:507–515).
March 2017—Something about having the letters “DNA” in a test’s name may make the test seem like the last word, the key to a black-and-white, definitive diagnosis. That connotation has been problematic for cell-free DNA sequencing used for noninvasive prenatal testing, because the test is not intended or designed for diagnosis, but only for screening. It’s for that reason, in fact, that some maternal-fetal medicine specialists and clinical geneticists prefer to use the term “noninvasive prenatal screening,” with the acronym NIPS.
March 2017—True, hemophilia is no longer commonly known as the “royal disease” (as it was when several generations of European rulers suffered from it). But in a January webinar, Dorothy M. Adcock, MD, gave some royally important suggestions regarding the laboratory diagnosis of hemophilia A and B.
March 2017—Students of history tell us that a durable paradigm shift most often involves a long gestation, typically under the radar and recognized by a precious few. What they frequently fail to tell us is that the vast majority of prognosticators often turn out to be both flat-out wrong and invisible when the “future” arrives. Either way, however, the prevailing narrative points to uncertainty in the greater health care environment.
March 2017—Anchor. Central pillar. Cornerstone. It would be hard to find a weighty synonym for “linchpin” that hasn’t been used to describe HbA1c’s role in diabetes diagnosis and management since 2010, when the assay was recognized by key standard-setting organizations as the equal of fasting glucose and oral glucose tolerance testing in diabetes and prediabetes testing.
March 2017—Keep eyes wide open to everything and describe everything because there might be a number of different factors playing into a patient’s disease. That was the reminder Robert M. Najarian, MD, opened with last fall in his CAP16 presentation on common patterns of liver injury.
March 2017—Crystal Sands, MBA, MT(ASCP)SM, manager of quality, regulatory, and safety at NorDx Laboratories in Scarborough, Me., has a new favorite product, and she’s not shy about saying so. “Oh my gosh, I’ll be playing with it for a long time,” she says. “Every time I use it, I find different ways to slice and dice.”
February 2017—Preventing genetic testing order errors via a lab utilization management program: Diagnostic errors, or failure to provide an accurate and timely diagnosis, impact an estimated 12 million outpatient care visits annually in the United States. These errors can often be attributed to the testing process, including test selection, ordering, retrieval, and interpretation. Literature about diagnostic errors has primarily focused on the outpatient setting; study of diagnostic error in the inpatient setting has been limited.
March 2017—An immunohistochemical algorithm for ovarian carcinoma typing: Five major histotypes of ovarian carcinoma exist. Diagnostic typing criteria have evolved over time, and past cohorts may be misclassified by current standards. The authors undertook an endeavor to reclassify the recently assembled Canadian Ovarian Experimental Unified Resource and Alberta Ovarian Tumor Type cohorts using immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers and to develop an IHC algorithm for ovarian carcinoma histotyping.
