Linkedin X-twitter Youtube
Launch Digital Edition

Webinars and Sponsored Roundtables — Register Now

Wednesday, September 23, 2026. 12 PM-1 PM ET
Roundtable presenters Dr. David Sacks MB, ChB, FRCPath, Chairman, Steering Committee National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP), and Priya Sivaraman, PhD, Senior Technical Product Manager, Tosoh Bioscience.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Register Now

Thursday, September 24, 2026 11 AM-12 PM CT
This session explores the evolving role of RAS in precision oncology, from the biology of RAS mutations to the expanding landscape of targeted therapies. Through expert presentations, real-world case discussions, and interactive audience polling, participants will examine best practices for RAS biomarker testing across solid tumors, including lung, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. The session will highlight practical considerations for tissue and liquid biopsy, strategies to address testing gaps, and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration to ensure timely identification of patients who may benefit from RAS-targeted therapies.

Webinar presenters David Braxton, MD, Chief of Molecular Pathology Services, Hoag Family Cancer Institute & Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, and Carlos Becerra, MD, Research Director for Medical Oncology, Margaret Given Larkin Endowed Chair for Developmental Cancer Therapeutics, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Register Now

Wednesday, September 30, 2026. 1 PM-1:30 PM ET
Roundtable presenters John Longshore, PhD, Head of Scientific Affairs, Global Oncology Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Flora Berisha, MS, Executive Director, Global Head of Diagnostic Partnering and Development, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, and Mark D. Ewalt, MD, Associate Medical Director for Laboratory Operations, Diagnostic Molecular Pathology, Molecular Diagnostics Service, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Isabel Preeshagul, DO, MBS, Thoracic Medical Oncologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

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.

Moderated by: Bob McGonnagle, Publisher, CAP TODAY

Register Now

Subspecialties

Interactive Product Guides

Q&A column

Q&A column

August 2025
Q. We manage multispecialty laboratories in multiple hospital locations. Most of the laboratories function on the traditional model of compartmentalized specialty-based testing units that offer routine and specialized services with their own dedicated space, equipment, and personnel. There is a future plan to establish an offsite centralized referral lab, but to improve operational efficiency and cost savings sooner, management is considering consolidating testing services at each location. What factors should be considered while planning the consolidation, keeping in mind the plan to establish a centralized reference lab? Should the testing services that will eventually be performed in the reference lab be excluded from the current consolidation plan? And how should we manage operations during the transition phase, i.e. once consolidation is completed but prior to the reference lab implementation? Read answer.

Q. We have been discussing supervisory review of test results that are manually entered into our laboratory information system (i.e. a test result not sent via interface from an analyzer or autoverified). Examples are a urine hCG performed on a kit cassette or a manual differential performed on a CBC, entered directly into the LIS by the performing technologist. Do manual test results require supervisory review, or is it only higher-complexity tests (like the differential) performed by a medical laboratory technologist that require such review? If review is required, who can review and what is the recommended time frame? Read answer.

Q&A column

July 2025
Q. What is the best way to check machine precision? Is it acceptable to run precision replicates in quality control mode? Read answer.

Q. Several molecular diagnostic vendors circulate across U.S. hospitals and clinics to provide collection kits to physicians and request that those physicians refer tests outside the institution for what is sometimes described as clinical trials or research. The vendors operate using a pharmaceutical company model of selling proprietary testing directly to physicians and patients and bypassing the laboratory. It is a problem because laboratories are often expected to collect and submit samples and then enter complex reports into the electronic health record.

These companies are farming health systems for business and bypassing the accreditation process. When the testing is used not for research but instead for “the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or the assessment of the health of, human beings,” under U.S. law it is defined as laboratory testing (section 353 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 USC §263a), which is overseen by pathology laboratories and under pathology’s accreditation. Under this legal definition of laboratory testing, those outsourced tests are not research.

Can you comment on this practice from an accreditation perspective? Read answer.

Q&A column

June 2025
Q. Our institution performs rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE). In cases in which multiple passes are done, we frequently encounter unsatisfactory specimens (debris, neutrophils, bronchial cells, etc.). These cases are rescreened by a cytotechnologist and pathologist. If the case goes to a different pathologist, those unsatisfactory slides are unnecessarily screened three times. They’re also included in the daily slide workload of the cytotechnologist. Can the onsite pathologist dispose of unsatisfactory Diff-Quik slides and keep just the counter formalin-fixed slides? Since ROSE is provided for that episode, can you comment on billing? Read answer.

Q. Many times a platelet count on an automated hematology system indicates some degree of thrombocytopenia or the analyzer reports a high mean platelet volume or platelet large cell ratio, while a blood smear shows large platelets and/or giant platelets. Is it OK to include a comment in the report that the platelets are adequate or that the count could be due to large platelets, especially with values that indicate marked thrombocytopenia? Read answer.

Q&A column

May 2025
Q. Our laboratory is considering adding whole slide imaging to our surgical pathology case workflow. The quality of the slides can have a negative impact on the scanning of the histologic sections. How can our histology laboratory produce histologic preparations that are optimal for whole slide imaging scanning? Read answer.

Q. Are there biological reference intervals for spot urine values for creatinine, protein, microalbumin, sodium, potassium, and calcium? Some reagent manufacturers give reference intervals for spot urine tests. Is this necessary? Read answer.

Q&A column

April 2025
Q. Is it important to perform a manual differential on a CBC with a very low or very high mean corpuscular volume (MCV) result, or will a smear review/scan for RBC morphology suffice? Read answer.

Q. Do exact formalin fixation times and cold ischemia times have to be listed in the final pathology report for immunohistochemistry predictive marker testing so long as they are traceable on internal records (e.g. processor times, container label times)? Or is it sufficient to state that the formalin fixation and cold ischemia times meet ASCO/CAP recommendations of less than or equal to one hour cold ischemia time and greater than six hours but less than 72 hours formalin fixation time?

The only variable not in our final reports is our end of formalin time, but it is traceable through internal laboratory records. We document in the final report the time the tissue was removed from the body and the time it was placed in formalin. Then a blanket statement of “less than or equal to one hour cold ischemia time and greater than six but less than 72 hours formalin fixation time” is inserted in the comment when it applies. Read answer.

Q&A column

March 2025
Q. When should plasma mixing tests be performed in the coagulation laboratory, and how are they best interpreted? Read answer.

Q. How important is it for a laboratory to perform whole mount specimen collection and examination? Read answer.

Q&A column

February 2025
Q. Is a pathology review on all cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimen differential slides necessary? Should the review be based on the number of white blood cells counted or the abnormality of the differential, or both? Read answer.

Q. At what level or time is aPTT considered incorrect? Is an aPTT of less than 22.0 seconds an acceptable result? Read answer.

Q&A column

January 2025
Q. In a CAP TODAY Q&A (published in August 2024), it was stated that a correlation between an automated and manual white blood cell count is not needed in clinical practice. Does this apply to digital imaging analyzers, such as those from CellaVision and Scopio, as well? If correlations between digital and manual differentials are required, what are your recommendations for acceptability? Read answer.

Q. When we write pathology reports, especially for prostatectomies, our diagnostic lines are often long, per CAP checklist requirements. In some cases, we retrim the surgical margins to evaluate the distal margins and note in the diagnostic line that margins will be studied further. When we report the margin status after retrimming, we are compelled to amend the report, leading to a large and somewhat confusing report because our long diagnostic lines are repeated; the only difference is the single line of the surgical margin. Do you have recommendations for creating an amended versus addendum report and addressing how the report can be more focused for clinicians and patients? Read answer.

Q&A column

December 2024
Q. What are the preferred tests for chronic kidney disease (CKD) screening and classification? Read answer.
Q. Is there a formula to correct a white blood cell count for micromegakaryocytes, or are megakaryocytes considered clinically insignificant unless there are greater than five per 100 WBCs? Is there a movement to drop reporting percents for individual WBCs, reactive lymphocytes, and reticulocytes? If so, does the CAP support such a change? Read answer.

Q&A column

NOVEMBER 2024 Q. Our laboratory was cited for a deficiency because the manufacturer and methodology of our tumor marker assay was not available to clinicians. What is the reasoning behind this requirement? Read answer.
Q. For patients who have a hematocrit level greater than 55 percent, is it okay to use a CBC (hematocrit) that was not collected at the same time as the citrate sample? For example, can we use a CBC collected within 24 hours for an inpatient and a CBC from a previous visit for an outpatient? Read answer.

MARKETPLACE

TRENDING