Linkedin X-twitter Youtube
Launch Digital Edition

Webinars and Sponsored Roundtables — Register Now

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. 

Register Now

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.

Register Now

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

Register Now

Subspecialties

Interactive Product Guides

Q&A

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.

Q&A column

NOVEMBER 2024 Q. Our laboratory was cited for a deficiency because the manufacturer and methodology of our tumor marker assay was not available to clinicians. What is the reasoning behind this requirement? Read answer.
Q. For patients who have a hematocrit level greater than 55 percent, is it okay to use a CBC (hematocrit) that was not collected at the same time as the citrate sample? For example, can we use a CBC collected within 24 hours for an inpatient and a CBC from a previous visit for an outpatient? Read answer.

Q&A column

October 2024
Q. Immunofluorescence microscopy results for antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) are reported as a titer. How can we best comply with CAP checklist requirement IMM.34120 Daily QC—Nonwaived Tests for ANA testing? Read answer.
Q. Is there a standard of care for anatomic pathology reporting? The CAP document “How to Read Your Pathology Report” states that pathologists “always perform the microscopic evaluation of a specimen, even if the final pathology report does not include a written description.” Must the testing pathology laboratory provide the patient with the microscopic description if it is requested and not included in the pathology report? Read answer.

Q&A column

September 2024
Q. When performing body fluid cell counts, we report total nucleated cells and RBCs. What cell categories should we report on the corresponding differential? Can we group together monocytes, macrophages, and mesothelial cells since it is difficult to distinguish reactive mesothelial cells from monocytes and macrophages? If so, what category name should be applied? Should we report mesothelial cells as a comment or include them in the differential? Read answer.
Q. Are nonlaboratory personnel who perform point-of-care testing required to be tested for visual color discrimination? Or is it sufficient that personnel pass a functional assessment during their competency evaluation to evaluate their ability to provide an accurate result on tests that require interpreting colors? Read answer.

MARKETPLACE

TRENDING