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
Tuesday, November 10, 2026, 1 PM-2 PM ET
Join us for a session to help improve diagnostic accuracy in your practice when scoring HER2 IHC 0 with faint, incomplete membrane staining in ≤10% of tumor cells vs IHC 0 with no membrane staining detected in patients with mBC.
Webinar presenter Jeffrey Gregg, MD, University of Nevada
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
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
Wednesday, December 9, 2026, 12 PM-1 PM ET
Hear an expert pathologist discuss the role of HER2 IHC testing and scoring in solid tumors including endometrial, ovarian, cervical, bladder, non-small cell lung, colorectal, and biliary cancers
Webinar presenter Michelle Shiller, DO, MSPT, Baylor Sammons Cancer Center; Fulgent Genetics; Texas Cancer Interception Institute
CAP TODAY does not endorse any of the products or services named within. This program is intended for US healthcare professionals. This program is being sponsored by 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
June 2020—With release of the latest Q-Probes study, titled “Expression Rates in Invasive Breast Carcinoma,” the CAP Quality Practices Committee fills a gap by providing data collected from a diverse set of 21 U.S. laboratories on the average frequency of various ER, PgR, and HER2 expression results.
May 2020—Like a top 40 radio hit, test utilization is a topic that can sometimes seem to be overplayed. But the COVID-19 pandemic brings into sharp relief its importance. “What we’ve seen is organizations that have more mature test utilization efforts in place may be better able to handle these crises,” says Peter L. Perrotta, MD, professor and chair of pathology, anatomy, and laboratory medicine at West Virginia University School of Medicine and director of pathology services, West Virginia University Health System.
May 2019—A new CAP Q-Probes benchmarking study on expression rates in invasive breast carcinoma will be available beginning in June.
November 2015—Blood is thicker than water, the saying goes. And thanks to a recent Q‑Probes, the rates of mislabeled specimens submitted for ABO blood typing and of wrong-blood-in-tube errors are now as clear as water. The mislabeling rate hasn’t changed much since a similar Q‑Probes study was performed in 2007. The 2015 Q‑Probes, “Blood Bank Safety Practices,” reviewed 41,333 specimens and found that 306, or 0.74 percent, were mislabeled. The previous study looked at 112,112 specimens, of which 1,258, or 1.12 percent, were mislabeled.
September 2015—There was a time when Michael L. Talbert, MD, didn’t spend much time thinking about delta checks in his laboratory. “I would periodically look at them, but I didn’t put a whole lot of thought into ranges or into which analytes were most efficient or effective,” says Dr. Talbert, who is chair of pathology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and chief of service and medical director of pathology and laboratory services at OU Medical System, Oklahoma City.
January 2015—While no one would question the virtues of accurate laboratory results, a recently concluded Q-Probes study is a new reminder that alone they’re not enough. Results should be reviewed before a lab goes live with a new interface that transmits results to the electronic health record, as well as when changes are made at the laboratory or EHR level that could alter test resulting. They also should be reviewed periodically, say the authors of the study, titled “Validating Laboratory Results in Electronic Health Records.”
November 2014—Molecular testing, on a steep growth curve in anatomic pathology, is increasingly providing decisive guidance for treatment of cancer patients. But while guidelines on clinical relevance and performance of common molecular tests are available and widely used in theory, to date there has been limited information on how well requests for molecular testing in AP laboratories are adhering to the guidelines.
December 2013—Prompt reporting of critical laboratory results is considered an important patient safety goal. But for one of the most commonly performed tests, point-of-care glucose, there has been limited information about how critical results are handled. A new CAP Q-Probes study finds there is a great deal of variability. In addition to having widely differing critical result cutoff values, many laboratories are not repeating critical POC glucose test results for verification despite the relative high rate of erroneous results on first measurement.
September 2013—A handful, a fraction of a percent, a tiny portion. In most institutions, that’s about how many tests are cancelled after they’ve been ordered and a specimen has been sent to the laboratory. But even that small number can have significant quality implications. The authors of the Q-Probes study, ”Reasons for Test Cancellation,” looked at more than a million specimen accessions at several dozen institutions, to get a fix on why tests are being cancelled and to gain insight into how laboratories can bring that number down. As the study makes clear, there is definitely room for improvement.
March 2013—In patients with diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1c testing frequency is largely in line with recommended guidelines. In those same patients, LDL testing is not performed frequently enough, and urine protein testing frequency falls far short of recommendations.
