Here here Amos. This is why I am for using multi tissue controls that have considered a range for most of the differences in tissues, fixation and processing encountered.
Patsy Patsy Ruegg, HT(ASCP)QIHC IHCtech 12635 Montview Blvd. Ste.215 Aurora, CO 80045 720-859-4060 fax 720-859-4110 www.ihctech.net www.ihcrg.org -----Original Message----- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Amos Brooks Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:21 PM To: jel...@yumaregional.org; histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: SPAM-LOW: [Histonet] RE: New Cap Guidelines for Her2 and ER/PR Hi, I'm going to have to disagree with this approach. Lumping all specimens into the same procedure (fixation/processing time) is in no way a step toward individualized care that is so often discussed. Doing this ignores the basic fundamental differences between the specimens. A liver is different from a breast and a brain. Likewise a particularly fatty breast is different from a fiberous one, or one that is cut smaller than the one the other pathologist (or PA) stuffed into a cassette. Each of these situations needs to be addressed differently from fixation to processing times and to be entirely honest staining times in many cases. I fear you may be oversimplifying the situation and calling it standardization. All the best, Amos Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:05:27 -0700 From: "Jesus Ellin" <jel...@yumaregional.org> Subject: RE: [Histonet] RE: New Cap Guidelines for Her2 and ER/PR To: "Kuhnla, Melissa" <melissa.kuh...@chsli.org>, "Phyllis Thaxton" <dch...@yahoo.com>, "Mahoney,Janice A" < janice.maho...@alegent.org>, "Mike Pence" <mpe...@grhs.net>, "Joyce Cline" <joyce.cl...@wchsys.org>, <histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu> Message-ID: <29be166a2cf48d459853f8ec57cd37e8021c6...@exchangecluster.yumaregional.local > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" OK I usually do not like to chime in on this, but here I go. How can a true validation of a specific target be obtained if the wiggle room is 6 to 48 hr, or 8 to 72 hr. Where is the precision and accuracy on the results for this testing if you are going to be varying process for the weekend vs weekday? This is the flaw in the guidelines in my perspective, when this much time is allowed it is like anything else. We are going to go the path of least resistance to change, instead of what is right. I know that as techs we always want the best, but are pushed to produce next day. Techs for years have been saying more fixation is needed on tissue. Well enough of that. What we do is we hold at 12 hours of fixation for all specimens no matter what? We document ischemic cold time through our LIS, to include time placed in formalin, and time of first cut. We feel that all specimens need the same fixation times. This is imperative to standardize the process, but once again we also have our processors set up in such a way that they come off at different times and our production of H an E is in sync with this. It might sound like a lot, but we get most of our work done around 96 to 97 % of cases within 24 hours or less using conventional processing techniques. With the future relying more and more on, patient centered care, through personalized medicine, we need to really look on how we can do the optimal requirements, not do the minimal requirements to reach our goals. Jesus Ellin _______________________________________________ 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