Webinars and Sponsored Roundtables — Register Now

Tuesday, October 20, 2026, 11 AM-12 PM ET
Hear experts review the biological and clinical significance of the HER2 expression continuum in breast tissue, providing a clearer understanding of how these variations might impact diagnosis, and discuss the emerging importance of documenting HER2-low and HER2-ultralow categories using a validated IHC assay.

Webinar presenters Keith Wharton, MD, PhD, Global Medical Affairs Leader–Pathology, Roche Diagnostics Solutions, and Hannah Y. Wen, MD, PhD, Director, Breast Pathology Fellowship, Associate Team Leader, Breast Pathology Team, Attending Pathologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. The webinar is made possible by a special educational grant from Roche.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Thursday, October 29, 2026, 1 PM-2 PM ET
Hear an expert discuss the evolving role of PD-L1 testing in HNSCC and ovarian cancer.

Webinar presenter Georgios Deftereos, MD, Professor of Pathology, Associate Director of the Clinical Cancer Genomics Laboratory, Director of Molecular Cytopathology, University of California, San Francisco

CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. The webinar is made possible by a special educational grant from Agilent.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 1 PM-2 PM ET
Hear an expert discuss the challenges of detecting NRG1 fusions and how RNA-based testing can support more comprehensive fusion identification in clinical practice.

Webinar presenter Benjamin Weinberg, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Attending Physician
specializing in gastrointestinal medical oncology

CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. The webinar is made possible by a special educational grant from Diaceutics.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Tuesday, November 10, 2026, 1 PM-2 PM ET
Join us for a session to help improve diagnostic accuracy in your practice when scoring HER2 IHC 0 with faint, incomplete membrane staining in ≤10% of tumor cells vs IHC 0 with no membrane staining detected in patients with mBC.

Webinar presenter Jeffrey Gregg, MD, University of Nevada

CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. This program is being sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and AstraZeneca. The speaker is being compensated for the presentation. The program is not CME accredited and may not be used for CME accreditation.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Monday, November 16, 2026, 12:30 PM-2 PM ET
Hear experts discuss a multidisciplinary approach to oncopathology for HER2
assessments for solid tumors in the absence of a companion diagnostic.

Webinar presenters Funda Meric-Bernstam, MD, Chair, Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics Medical Director, Institute for Personalized Cancer Therapy, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, and Emina E. Torlakovic, MD, PhD, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Canadian Biomarker Quality Assurance, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, and Carol Cheung, MD, PhD, JD, FRCPC, Deputy Director, Canadian Biomarker Quality, Assurance—Programme canadien d’assurance de la qualité des biomarqueurs

CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. This program is being sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and AstraZeneca. The speaker is being compensated for the presentation. The program is not CME accredited and may not be used for CME accreditation.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Subspecialties

Interactive Product Guides

November 2013

Results reporting in microbiology: What’s needed, what’s not?

November 2013—After the patient specimens have been collected and the tests have been performed, after the legwork is complete and the results are in hand, reporting clinical microbiology findings should in theory be the easy part—the final step before an effective treatment plan is formed. But as any seasoned clinical microbiologist knows, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In predicting CKD risk, eGFR better when based on cystatin C

November 2013—Like turning around an ocean-going tanker, changing widely accepted testing practices in kidney disease, one of the nation’s most common disorders, may have to be done gradually. But the latest study comparing the biomarkers cystatin C and creatinine, published in the Sept. 5 New England Journal of Medicine (2013;369:932–943), is the most sweeping study to date and should provide new impetus to wider use of cystatin C.

From the President’s Desk: PT for the passionate and the savvy, 11/13

November 2013—PT for the passionate and the savvy I believe that most pathologists and laboratory professionals enjoy refining systems and processes to further promote quality practices in their laboratories. We may not think about discipline and precision when somebody mentions passion, but passion is what those inclinations represent. While passionate pathology can manifest in a host of ways, this month I’d like to talk about how it drives excellence in CAP Surveys or proficiency testing (PT) programs.

Keys to curbing tube interference with test results

November 2013—There’s nothing flashy about specimen tubes, which may look like the most mass-produced, commonplace items in the laboratory, but appearances can be deceptive. All tubes are not created equal. “We know that preanalytical errors account for the majority of errors in the laboratory, and many of those errors derive from the tube type in which you collect your sample,” says Leslie J. Donato, PhD, co-director of the hospital clinical laboratory and point of care at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Q & A, 10/13

October 2013—We are standardizing procedures across our system. In thrombocytopenic patients with low platelet counts, some sites perform manual platelet counts using the Unopette system; others perform slide estimates to confirm an automated count. The need for improved turnaround times and greater accuracy and precision is clear. Are there studies that have evaluated the true accuracy of a low platelet count via a manual dilution technique versus the many automated techniques, and is there a true value in performing the time-consuming manual platelet count?