Webinars and Sponsored Roundtables — Register Now

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

Subspecialties

Interactive Product Guides

Q&A Search

How useful is an APTT value if the value falls below the reference interval?

October 2022
Q. How many blocks should a histotechnologist with multiple responsibilities cut per day in a semiautomated laboratory? Read answer.

Q. Is it acceptable to release results from an analyzer with flags or alarms if a pathologist sends an email instructing to do so, even if the manufacturer’s instructions state that results with flags or alarms should be verified by another method before reporting? I am referring to hematology analyzer auto-differential results with asterisk flags. The emailed instructions from the pathologist are applied to all samples but are not incorporated into our standard operating procedure.

We report auto-differential results that have asterisk flags and then perform a manual differential. The report, therefore, contains two differential results that, when compared, are almost always different clinically and statistically. Read answer.

Q. How useful is an aPTT value if the value falls below the reference interval? Read answer.

Is it acceptable to release results from an analyzer with flags or alarms if a pathologist sends an email instructing to do so, even if the manufacturer’s instructions state that results with flags or alarms should be verified by another method before reporting?

I am referring to hematology analyzer auto-differential results with asterisk flags. The emailed instructions from the pathologist are applied to all samples but are not incorporated into our standard operating procedure. We report auto-differential results that have asterisk flags and then perform a manual differential. The report, therefore, contains two differential results that, when compared, are almost always different clinically and statistically.

What is the most specific serologic test for diagnosing IgG4-related disease?

A. February 2023—IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a fibroinflammatory disease that can affect any organ and was first recognized as a unique clinical entity in 2003. The most affected organs include the pancreas, bile duct, major salivary glands, lacrimal glands, retroperitoneum, and lymphatic ducts. Key features of the disorder include elevated serum IgG4 concentrations, neoplastic-like swelling of the affected organs, as shown on an imaging test, specific histopathological characteristics on immunostaining, as well as a good response to treatment with glucocorticoids.

An oncologist contacted the laboratory to ask if our standard estradiol immunoassay was appropriate to monitor her breast cancer patients who are on an aromatase inhibitor. What should I say?

January 2023—Mass-spectrometry–based assays are preferred for measuring estradiol (E2) in populations where low concentrations are expected, such as in males, postmenopausal females, prepubertal children, and those receiving estrogen-suppressing medications or therapies. Comparing the E2 reference interval for postmenopausal females (approximately <10 pg/mL) to that of premenopausal females (15–350 pg/mL, depending on the phase of the menstrual cycle) illustrates what concentrations could be considered low.

I am updating our procedure for blood draw volume limits and using So You’re Going to Collect a Blood Specimen: An Introduction to Phlebotomy, 15th edition, by Frederick L. Kiechle, MD, PhD, as a guide.

February 2023—The chart in the manual lists volume limits for a single blood draw at 2 cc/kg. Other charts online list 2.5 cc/kg and a maximum milliliters per 30-day period that is twice the single blood draw (5 cc/kg). I am going to use 2 cc/kg and add a column for maximum milliliters in a 30-day period at 4 cc/kg. The phlebotomists are confused about whether a single blood draw means every day of the patient’s admission or if you would take the single blood draw and only allow the remainder of the 30-day limit. You could essentially draw the single blood draw volume limit on day one and the remainder on day two. Please clarify.

I want to inquire about verification of target mean/ranges for hematology analytes. We run a control material 20 times and calculate statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation.

November 2022—We also calculate total analytical error based on a formula (TAE = bias + 2 SD) and compare the TAE with the allowable total error recommended by CLSI and other sources. For example, if TAE for platelets (based on reading control material 20 times) is less than 25 percent (a CLSI recommended value), we accept the target range; otherwise, we reject it. However, since low concentrations of analytes are prone to a higher degree of variation, the aforementioned target range verification process frequently fails. Is it necessary to accept or reject established target values based on total analytical error? Or is there an alternative way to do that?

Is secretory change in endometrial hyperplasia acceptable in the absence of progestin therapy? What is the appropriate way to address an endometrial biopsy with secretory glandular changes and an increase in the gland-to-stroma ratio?

November 2022—Secretory change superimposed on endometrial hyperplasia is well recognized, as are the challenges of making this diagnosis. Although secretory change is most commonly seen in the setting of progestin therapy for previously diagnosed endometrial hyperplasia, it may also be seen de novo due to the effect of progesterone, resulting from ovulation or pregnancy, on preexisting hyperplasia.