Tom I did notice that too and wondered just how long this person had been "out" of the working lab setting. This was something that was done back when IHC was done all manually. I think I will just take my chances with what I am doing now as acceptable and wait and see what the CAP inspector thinks or at least how they are dealing with this question!
Mike -----Original Message----- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas Jasper Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:38 PM To: Mark Tarango Cc: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: RE: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 Mark, Did you notice the credentials from this CAP representative? MT with a Blood Bank specialty I believe. What I glean from that is...more than likely this person does not grasp the logistics of "contemporaneously" staining identical Abs from separate lots. She also likely does not understand the logistical application for detection and automation either. I'm not trying to be overly critical of this person. I'm sure she is quite intelligent and would not have the MT/SBB if she wasn't intelligent. It comes down to a lack of understanding Anatomic Pathology testing application re: automated IHC. I believe this is a common problem in and out of CAP. Many lab directors and other folks in positions of authority without AP/Histology/Cytology backgrounds seem to believe that broad clinical lab modalities apply to Anatomic Path scenarios. I used to refer to this in my former position as - "Trying to put the yoke of clinical lab onto anatomic path." We are laboratorians, but in many instances do not fit the general clinical lab mold. It's unfortunate that CAP has put this person in the position to respond. It is apparent to me that she's not grasping the particulars here. She probably never will unless she decides to go into a working, automated IHC "tissue" lab and take the time to ask questions and understand (learn) what we're all about. Thanks, Tom Jasper Thomas Jasper HT (ASCP) BAS Histology Supervisor Central Oregon Regional Pathology Services Bend, OR 97701 -----Original Message----- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Tarango Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:47 AM To: McMahon, Loralee A Cc: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: Re: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 That's what I thought at first too. It might be helpful to post this letter that I got from the CAP about this. I tried to argue with them, but this is the answer I got. Dear Mark, Your questions were forwarded to me for response. During the Audio-conference, the idea of comparing a previously stained slide (that had used the "old" lot) to one stained with the new lot was deemed acceptable, but not optimal. Doing a simultaneous staining using old and new lots, better demonstrates the performance characteristics of the reagent. The reason parallel staining is considered best practice is that all other variables, such as variations in the lot of detection reagent or instrument function, are eliminated from consideration when the slides are stained contemporaneously. The antibody "getting weak over time" should not happen to a significant degree if the antibody is used within its expiration date. If the lab is having this kind of trouble, it should look carefully at its storage conditions. Demonstrating acceptable performance of the new lot, before being place into service, is *required* for all accredited laboratories. To answer the last question, the key is to order the new reagent well before you run out of the old lot so that the parallel stain can be performed before the old lot is consumed. One multi-tissue slide control slide would suffice to evaluate a primary antibody lot in most cases, which helps to minimize the impact on the lab. I hope that this information is helpful. Thank you for your participation in the Laboratory Accreditation Program. Sincerely, *Kathy Passarelli, MT(ASCP)SBB* *Technical Specialist* *Laboratory Accreditation Program* *College** of American** Pathologists* *Phone: 1-(800)-323-4040 ext 7486* *e-mail: **kpas...@cap.org* <kpas...@cap.org> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:47 AM, McMahon, Loralee A < loralee_mcma...@urmc.rochester.edu> wrote: > I think that CAP means that you need to save the slide that you ran > from the previous lot and compare it to the slide that you have > stained with the new lot number. To see if they are sufficient > diagnostic quality. Not put both lot numbers on the machine at the same time and then compare the > slides? We run Dako machines and it would be tricky to put both numbers on > the same machine. > > Although this is my interpretation. > > Loralee McMahon, HTL (ASCP) > Immunohistochemistry Supervisor > Strong Memorial Hospital > Department of Surgical Pathology > (585) 275-7210 > ________________________________________ > From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [ > histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Pence [ > mpe...@grhs.net] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 12:41 PM > To: Ellen Yee; Laurie Colbert > Cc: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Subject: RE: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 > > I don't think I can do this with the automated system we are currently > using. Ventana. Does any other Ventana users know if you can do this > in "parallel" > > Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Ellen > Yee > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 7:21 PM > To: Laurie Colbert > Cc: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Subject: RE: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 > > > Sorry, I should have included it. > > ANP.22760 Are new lots of antibody and detection system reagents > tested in parallel with old lots? (NOTE: New lots of primary antibody > and detection system reagents must be compared to the previous lot > using an appropriate panel of control tissues.) > > Ellen Yee > _____ > > From: Laurie Colbert [mailto:laurie.colb...@huntingtonhospital.com] > To: Ellen Yee [mailto:e...@dpmginc.com] > Sent: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:47:38 -0700 > Subject: RE: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 > > Can you give us the wording of that question/checklist item? Laurie > > -----Original Message----- > From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Ellen > Yee > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:10 PM > To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > Subject: [Histonet] New CAP question ANP.22760 > > How are IHC labs complying with this question? What is considered an > appropriate panel of control tissues? What do you stain to test your > detection systems? > > Ellen Yee > > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > _______________________________________________ > Histonet mailing list > Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu > http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet > _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet