Linkedin Youtube
Launch Digital Edition

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

Register Now

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

Register Now

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

Register Now

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

Register Now

Subspecialties

Interactive Product Guides

Q&A column

Q&A column

September 2025
Q. Some of my laboratory staff are reluctant to reach out to the CAP with accreditation questions on checklist requirements because they fear that doing so will lead CAP inspectors to scrutinize those related items more closely during the next inspection. How does the College manage information from these phone calls? Read answer.

Q. An oncologist recently told me to perform a platelet count on a sodium citrate (blue top) tube even though the platelet results from the EDTA tube were valid—no platelet flags, a Q-flag value of zero, a normal platelet histogram, and no clumps seen on slide review. Based on this evidence, this patient is not an EDTA clumper and using the blue-top tube isn’t indicated or recommended, as far as I know. What is the science behind this request? There were platelet clumps in the blue-top tubes (platelet instrument flags and clumps seen on the slides from the citrate tubes), which further invalidated these results in my opinion as a licensed laboratory scientist. Read answer.

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.

MARKETPLACE

TRENDING