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
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
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
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
February 2023
Q. What is the most specific serologic test for diagnosing IgG4-related disease? Read answer.
Q. Our new endocrine clinic is monitoring estradiol levels in transgender male patients (female to male) and asked if our standard estradiol immunoassay is appropriate to use in this setting. What do you recommend? Read answer.
January 2023
Q. 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. 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. Read answer.
Q. 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? Read answer.
December 2022
Q. What is the appropriate way to measure or identify microcytosis or macrocytosis? Read answer.
Q. A six-year-old female with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and Rh-negative blood is being treated with myeloablative chemotherapy to achieve durable remission or as a bridge to stem cell transplantation, during which supportive transfusions will include repeated platelet transfusions over many weeks. Clinicians are concerned that the patient could become alloimmunized to the D antigen, which, in turn, could affect her ability to eventually bear children.
Apheresis platelets contain a small but finite amount of RBC contaminants, which are not usually quantitated. An optimal strategy to prevent anti-D alloimmunization is to use Rh-negative platelets, but they are often in short supply and cannot be ordered stat in a timely enough manner to ensure every platelet transfusion episode is Rh-negative. We considered using Rh immune globulin (RhIg). However, we recognize that commercial RhIg is designed to prevent D alloimmunization in the setting of obstetric fetal-maternal bleeding.
Is there an optimal dose for RhIg or suggested timing of administration to prevent anti-D alloimmunization in this setting? Read answer.
November 2022
Q. 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? Read answer.
Q. 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. 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? Read answer.
Q. Should an accelerated APTT result be canceled for being clotted, even in the absence of a visible clot? Read answer.
Search Engine
[ivory-search id=”72214″ title=”Q&A column”]
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.
September 2022
Q. The laboratory at which I work uses two proficiency testing programs—from the CAP and an alternate provider—for dermatologists who perform fungal smears. Our laboratory administers challenges for both programs every six months. The dermatologists have variably passed and failed challenges from both programs such that the record of satisfactory challenges alternates between the CAP and the alternate provider’s programs. Is our approach allowed? Do we need to stick with a single PT provider for one year before switching? Read answer.
Q. Should flow cytometry be used to test a cerebrospinal fluid specimen with known or suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Our hospital administration is pushing to run such samples. I think the testing should not be done because it would contaminate the instrument and potentially endanger the flow techs. Read answer.
August 2022
Q. Every month our anatomic pathology laboratory amends patient reports. Does the CAP have a benchmark for amended reports, such as how many are acceptable per month? Read answer.
Q. What is the best practice for performing a urine specific gravity test? Which method is preferred—a refractometer or an automated dipstick? Should we correct for elevated glucose and protein or report high specific gravity? Should we correct for x-ray dyes or add a comment and list possible interfering substances? Read answer.
July 2022
Q. When a patient has a hematocrit level of ≥55 percent and a normal PT and APTT, do you still correct sodium citrate and ask for a redraw? Is it crucial to ask for a redraw when the emergency department orders a stat PT and APTT? Read answer.
Q. Obtaining an accurate blood glucose level is hindered by continued glycolysis in the evacuated tube post collection, even if a gray top tube is used. This leads to falsely low blood glucose levels. What can laboratories do to limit ex vivo glycolysis? Read answer.
June 2022
Q. Can bronchoalveolar lavage specimens from multiple lobes be pooled for culture? Can multiple biopsies from the same joint be pooled for culture? Read answer.
Q. We verify our reference intervals with each new reagent lot for coagulation tests (PT, APTT, fibrinogen, and TT). What difference in values between lots necessitates establishing a new reference interval?
A CAP TODAY Q&A from January 2015 mentions limits within 1.5 seconds of each other between new and old reagent lots for human recombinant PT. What about limits for APTT and fibrinogen? Read answer.
