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
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?
October 2017—Our doctors request strep group A culture on throat specimens that are negative for rapid strep group A. On culture workup, if we have beta-hemolytic strep, we perform latex grouping only for group A strep; we report negative for GAS if latex is negative and positive if latex is positive. I think we should confirm all GAS with pyrrolidonyl arylamidase (PYR), and group and report other non-GAS. What do you think?
September 2017— I received a sample with very high hemoglobin grossly. When I ran the sample on the Cell-Dyn Ruby, it was unable to calculate the parameters related to Hgb. I diluted the EDTA blood and ran the test again. In this scenario, should I multiply all the indices and Hgb-related parameters with the dilution factor? Which parameters should I multiply with the dilution factor?
August 2017—Due to an ever-changing workforce, many new and inexperienced technologists are working in the microbiology lab and appear to be having difficulty interpreting cultures and troubleshooting when an organism in question may not be significant. As an example, a scant growth of Micrococcus was isolated and reported from a cerebrospinal fluid culture; it was not seen in the Gram stain and was negative for leukocytes. Contaminants had been noted on some of the media plates at this time as well, but many of these inexperienced technologists do not have the confidence to ignore obvious contaminants or suggest the possibility of contamination. Is there some guidance or troubleshooting tools for these situations?
July 2017—A laboratory is considering the implementation of a laboratory test for the diagnosis of Zika virus infection. This test is currently labeled as a test under the issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization. What specific regulations regarding the use of this test, quality control, and proficiency testing apply when performing this test on patient specimens?
June 2017—Our analyzer reported nucleated red blood cells of six, with no cellular interference flag. The technologist missed that the automated NRBC was six. When he performed the manual differential, he noted more than five NRBCs and performed a corrected count and certified it. Is it acceptable to report out the automated white blood cell value as well as the corrected WBC?
May 2017—Is there any medical reason why a physician would ask the lab to run a complete blood count on cord blood? Does CAP checklist requirement HEM.23050 treat automated and manual differentials equally? That is, does the recommendation to report absolute counts apply also to manual differentials or only to automated differentials? What is the next step in resolving platelet clumping when it occurs in a citrate tube also?
April 2017—Our laboratory receives requests for breast predictive marker testing (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2, Ki-67) on biopsies of bone metastases. Is it appropriate to perform this testing on decalcified tissue? Is there a regulatory speed limit—whether a per day or a per hour “at the microscope” workload limit—on surgical pathology slide interpretations, similar to workload limits for cytology screening?
March 2017—Our hospital system is implementing Sysmex instruments with a focus on the accuracy of the absolute white blood cell values—use of the absolute neutrophil count and immature granulocytes with the WBC as markers for septicemia. I then became aware that the hospital purchased the St. John Sepsis v14 protocol, which lists 10 percent bands as one of the markers for septicemia. The Rumke for 10 percent is 4–16. Using bands is not consistent with reducing manual differentials and is not an accurate parameter to use. Are there other protocols using WBC/ANC?
February 2017—I have an oncology patient with a diagnosis of immune thrombocytopenia. The patient’s sample has been drawn in sodium citrate, EDTA K2, sodium heparin, and warm saline replacements, and a true platelet count cannot be obtained. Platelets clump in all tubes, and multiple platelet clumps are observed under the microscope. The patient doesn’t have thrombocytopenia. What else can I do?
