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
May 2018—Our immunohistochemistry laboratory is moving to a new building across the street. We are not getting new equipment, just moving the machines to the new building. Do we need to perform a full revalidation of all our antibodies?
April 2018—A semen analysis for viability was collected at 9:30 AM and not received in the laboratory until 1:40 PM. Our standard operating procedure says this test must be analyzed one hour after collection, with no disclaimers stated for late receivables. Therefore, it is my understanding that a specimen received five hours after collection would be considered unacceptable because the viability of the semen is compromised and the collection delivery does not follow our SOP.
March 2018—Our pathology group has an unusual case of residual squamous cell carcinoma of the lung in a lobectomy specimen after chemotherapy. The lung shows a hilar scar (1.7 cm) involving the lung parenchyma and the peribronchial adipose tissue. In the scar there is residual carcinoma (0.4 cm) that focally is involving the peribronchiolar adipose tissue around the lobar bronchus. The focus is located at 0.3 cm of the final surgical resection margin of the bronchus. Because the tumor involves peribronchiolar adipose tissue, is it considered outside the lung (extension outside the lung)? Since the tumor is in the mediastinal fat around the bronchi and had to invade the viscera pleura to invade the peribronchial adipose tissue, would the tumor stage be ypT2a? Or T3 since it is invading part of the mediastinal fat? Or should it be pT1?
February 2018—I come from a core (hematology/chemistry) background, and I would like practical, how-to guidance in developing an effective QC strategy for HIV viral load testing. What performance characteristics do you verify? How many and what type of samples do you use? What are the chosen acceptable thresholds? Do you use L-J charts? If so, what do you plot, what control rules do you select, and how do you select them?
January 2018—We are in the process of validating the Stago STA Compact Max and Stago STA R Max with cap piercing. The company is stating that the open and closed modes follow the same testing pathway and therefore validation between modes is not necessary. Is this correct? Is PHI (phosphohexose isomerase), also known as GPI (glucose phosphate isomerase), mainly responsible for metastasis and circulating tumor cells?
December 2017—Is a tumor embolus in the capsule of the lymph nodes considered metastasis? Does the lung, like the lymph nodes of the breast, have the concept of isolated tumor cells? As the staging rule is “when in doubt, understage,” would the case therefore be pT2, N0?
November 2017—A laboratory owns chemistry analyzers from company X. Company X recommends that its customers use company X’s calibration material to perform their linearity studies, starting with the highest concentration and using the chemistry analyzer’s autodilution feature to provide a total of four measurable concentrations and a final zero point. Does this protocol fulfill CAP checklist requirements?
October 2017—Our doctors request strep group A culture on throat specimens that are negative for rapid strep group A. On culture workup, if we have beta-hemolytic strep, we perform latex grouping only for group A strep; we report negative for GAS if latex is negative and positive if latex is positive. I think we should confirm all GAS with pyrrolidonyl arylamidase (PYR), and group and report other non-GAS. What do you think?
September 2017— I received a sample with very high hemoglobin grossly. When I ran the sample on the Cell-Dyn Ruby, it was unable to calculate the parameters related to Hgb. I diluted the EDTA blood and ran the test again. In this scenario, should I multiply all the indices and Hgb-related parameters with the dilution factor? Which parameters should I multiply with the dilution factor?
August 2017—Due to an ever-changing workforce, many new and inexperienced technologists are working in the microbiology lab and appear to be having difficulty interpreting cultures and troubleshooting when an organism in question may not be significant. As an example, a scant growth of Micrococcus was isolated and reported from a cerebrospinal fluid culture; it was not seen in the Gram stain and was negative for leukocytes. Contaminants had been noted on some of the media plates at this time as well, but many of these inexperienced technologists do not have the confidence to ignore obvious contaminants or suggest the possibility of contamination. Is there some guidance or troubleshooting tools for these situations?
