Tuesday, April 28, 2026, 12:00 PM–1:00 PM ET
Discover how next-day comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is possible with the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus on the Genexus System—delivering both speed and accuracy.
Webinar presenters Jane Bayani, MHSc, PhD, Assistant Professor and Co-Director, Diagnostic Development, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Canada, and Nicola Normanno, MD, Scientific Director, IRCCS Romagnolo Institute for the Study of Tumors, Italy, and Morten Grauslund, PhD, Molecular Biologist, Department of Pathology, Rigshospitalet/Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
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 Thermo Fisher Scientific. For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic applications.
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
October 2017—The expert and advisory panels for the CAP/IASLC/AMP guideline on molecular testing for lung cancer biomarkers started updating the guideline in 2014, and an important but fairly routine revision process may have seemed to lie ahead. Something like sedately stepping onto a moving sidewalk. The key question at that point was quotidian: Have new data emerged to warrant changing the original recommendations?
October 2017—The CAP issued its first accreditation checklist for next-generation sequencing in 2014, as NGS was becoming a tool used in a growing number of clinical laboratories. The list of requirements, which was a new section in the molecular pathology checklist, focused on constitutive (germline) testing and oncology testing.
September 2017—Like an old friend with a new facelift, or a high-mileage car with a thorough tune-up, the 2017 edition of the CAP transfusion medicine checklist has undergone a significant number of small changes—none of which is startling in itself, but all of which combine to produce a fresh and streamlined effect. More than 90 of the checklist’s requirements have been revised, many in the name of alignment with FDA requirements.
August 2017—There was no trip to the spa. But some sections of the 2017 edition of the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program checklist are looking trimmed and toned compared with last year’s checklists. A microbiology section that is shorter by eight pages, fewer Individualized Quality Control Plan reporting requirements, and a new section addressing chain of custody once again reflect the hard work of the Checklists Committee and scientific resource committees to achieve conciseness and clarity.
August 2017—Quantum theory is often interpreted to mean an object can be in two places simultaneously. Unfortunately, quantum theory doesn’t apply to laboratory directors, at least not on a scheduling level. Like the rest of us, directors can be in only one place at a time, no matter how many laboratories they oversee. Now a change to the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program’s checklists will clarify expectations for directors who are in charge of more than one laboratory. The 2017 edition of the checklists, released this month, has eliminated the specific requirements for laboratory directors who are not on site full time and has clarified responsibilities for all directors, on site or remote.
May 2017—Plenty can happen in five years. Just ask Cubs fans who watched their team leap from a 101-loss season in 2012 to a 103-win season in 2016 and a World Series title as the cherry on top. Or ask Daniel Arber, MD, who co-chaired a hefty new guideline—a half decade in the making—on diagnostic workup of acute leukemia. At the start of the project, “I think everyone going into it realized it was going to be a time-consuming, long process. But I don’t think anyone realized how long,” says Dr. Arber, professor and chair of pathology, University of Chicago, and the CAP co-chair for the guideline group.
September 2016—For the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program, inspection checklist requirements covering personnel are a perennial concern. They are the leading source of disparities between the findings of the program’s inspectors and inspection audits done by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Personnel is also high on the list of questions asked of Laboratory Accreditation Program staff. “Personnel is a hot topic for the College,” says CAP Checklists Committee chair William W. West, MD.
August 2016—Maybe laboratory accreditation checklists aren’t the first reading you reach for when you want to unwind. But for an intriguing window into laboratory medicine and how it’s changing, you might take a look at the revisions in the 2016 edition of the Laboratory Accreditation Program checklists, released in August.
August 2016—As the use of in situ hybridization (ISH) expands, laboratories employing this form of testing increasingly rely on the CAP Laboratory Accreditation Program checklist for guidance. That is one reason members from three CAP committees started meeting to revise the ISH checklist, says CAP Surgical Pathology Committee member Aleodor Andea, MD, MBA. Another reason: to harmonize and streamline the ISH checklist requirements across three different disciplines.
August 2015—The problem of carbapenem resistance first made its way to Detroit’s Henry Ford Hospital in 2007, when a multidrug-resistant organism appeared in a sputum sample from the intensive care unit. Within weeks, several other cases emerged.
