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
January 2017—I have a technologist who is a recent graduate from a medical technology school. She has her BA but the school she attended did not offer an internship program. We are offering her one year of on-the-job training so she will be able to sit for her ASCP certification exam after completing the one year of training.
Q. Are there guidelines on microsatellite instability analysis by immunohistochemistry on colorectal adenocarcinomas? Specifically, should immunohistochemical stains for the mismatch repair enzymes be performed on all colorectal adenocarcinomas regardless of the clinical or pathological findings? A medical group recently requested these studies on all colorectal adenocarcinomas.
November 2016—As originally described, there are technically five Gleason patterns: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. However, since patterns 1 and 2 are never used, there are no Gleason scores 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 1 = 3, 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 3 = 5, and 3 + 2 = 5. Why is this? Isn’t this an alteration of Gleason’s original classification concept? Furthermore, there are cases in which a biopsy may contain a few glands that are diagnostic of carcinoma but insufficient to assign an accurate Gleason score. Would it simply be best to make a descriptive comment to that effect?
October 2016—What are the guidelines for proper handling and processing of blood specimens collected in serum separator tubes? Are there regulations guiding the practice of taking additional blood samples from a patient even though there are no orders for the blood samples? These “just in case” specimens are sent to our laboratory by the emergency department when a port or catheter is placed in the patient. The ED’s reasoning is that it prevents a patient from being stuck twice if there is an order for blood tests later. Our lab has to either store the samples or process them (centrifuge or separate RBCs from serum) so they are ready in case an order is entered later. Should this practice be banned? Should we refuse to accept these samples?
September 2016—We know we can count fewer than 100 cells for a manual differential if there is a very low white cell count. But if the white cell count is very high, should we count more than 100 cells? Some references state that >30,000 WBC/µL require a 200 cell differential, others >50,000 WBC/µL, and many do not mention at all the need to increase above 100 cells counted.
August 2016—If you obtain a platelet count from a blood sample collected in a sodium citrate tube, the result is multiplied by 1.1 to correct for the volumetric difference in anticoagulant compared with EDTA. When you result the platelet count from the sodium citrate tube, is it a CAP requirement to attach a comment such as: “_#__ Results reported from blue top tube. The reference range and other method performance specifications have not been established or approved by FDA. Use results with caution.”
July 2016—What are the steps to validating maximum dilution for certain analytes when the stated manufacturer dilution is not enough? What is considered best practice for verifying platelet-poor plasma for coagulation? Is it necessary to measure platelet counts from 2.7 mL and 1.8 mL tubes? Is annual verification consistent with best practice?
June 2016—Can you offer feedback on the growing trend of using type A fresh frozen plasma in emergencies instead of type AB? Is this being used mainly in trauma hospitals and military sites or is the trend becoming more popular in smaller hospitals too?
May 2016—What laboratory test should be used to monitor the effect of the heart failure medication Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan)? After getting a consultation report, I usually issue an addendum without changing my own diagnosis. Some of my colleagues use an amended report with their own diagnosis changed. They say this will help clinicians with patient management. I do not feel confident about many of these difficult cases, so I do not want to change my diagnosis. We would like to establish a department policy to address this. Can you provide guidance?
April 2016—We review peripheral blood smears and sometimes provide recommendations. For microcytic anemia with high red blood cell count, iron study and hemoglobin electrophoresis are suggested to rule out hemoglobinopathy. But for cases of microcytosis with high RBC count but without anemia, should we give the same recommendation as for an anemic patient?
