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
Wednesday, June 24, 2026, 12:00–1:00 PM ET
Hear an expert discuss the expanded clinical utility of HER2 IHC scoring in metastatic breast cancer and its impact on your practice
Webinar presenters Michelle Shiller, DO, AP, CP, MGP, FACP, Baylor University Medical Center.
Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY
November 2017—A laboratory owns chemistry analyzers from company X. Company X recommends that its customers use company X’s calibration material to perform their linearity studies, starting with the highest concentration and using the chemistry analyzer’s autodilution feature to provide a total of four measurable concentrations and a final zero point. Does this protocol fulfill CAP checklist requirements?
November 2017—Study finds biotin interference; FDA clears Flu A/B/RSV assay on Hologic’s Panther Fusion; FDA clears Abbott’s Alinity ci-series; Sysmex introduces CyFlow Antibodies for flow cytometry; Test approved for screening Zika in blood donations; New insights into female reproductive tract development
Biotin pharmacokinetic study results: In Anne Paxton’s September 2016 article, “Beauty fad’s ugly downside: test interference,” I stated a commitment from Roche to reduce possible interferences, including biotin, and provide clear test labeling to ensure that physicians and laboratories can mitigate risk.
November 2017—In the October 2017 issue was a report, “Primary pulmonary adenocarcinoma with an unusual molecular profile of the EGFR gene at initial presentation,” written by members of the Association for Molecular Pathology. Here are answers (in bold) to the three “test yourself ” questions that followed that case report.
October 2017—Classifying central nervous system tumors has recently become both more complex and easier. Surgical pathologists now have guidance that helps them work through the whys, hows, and what-ifs of using molecular studies when making diagnoses. The 2016 WHO classification for CNS tumors, which has been described as a conceptual and practical advance over the previous incarnation, from 2007, should also help them move closer to precision medicine.
October 2017—Until recently, new treatments for stage 4 lung cancer have generally required weighing toxicity against hopes that patients’ average length of survival might be extended by a month or two. But “our expectations are increasing as therapies have improved,” says Geoff Oxnard, MD, thoracic oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “Patients and doctors are increasingly expecting targeted therapies with dramatic effect and few side effects.”
October 2017—The expert and advisory panels for the CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline on molecular testing for lung cancer biomarkers started updating the guideline in 2014, and an important but fairly routine revision process may have seemed to lie ahead. Something like sedately stepping onto a moving sidewalk. The key question at that point was quotidian: Have new data emerged to warrant changing the original recommendations?
October 2017—Few pathologists and laboratory professionals would argue with the potential clinical benefit of a diagnostic management team, a group that meets often and provides timely patient-specific reports that synthesize all test results. But getting C-suite executives on board may mean uncovering whether such a team can save the hospital money.
October 2017—I understand that you’re reading this several weeks after CAP17, after I’ve been sworn in, after we’ve returned home thinking about friendships renewed, controversies debated, new tools encountered up close. Although I write this before the meeting, I know how I will feel by the time you read it: grateful and glad to be a member of this organization.
October 2017—A new guideline on the evaluation of abnormal liver chemistries was published in the January 2017 issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG).1 The guideline, developed by the American College of Gastroenterology’s practice parameters committee, is based on three resources, the first of which is a review of published research. The other two resources are notably similar and largely based in expert opinion.
