[Histonet] Pathology modernisation

Thu Apr 22 04:32:44 CDT 2004

Thanks for that, I wouldn't mind seeing the outcome of your
modernisation if I may. The major problem I will be having is the threat
the Staff see from their jobs being eroded and the loss of Non-Gynae. I
see their point but my feeling is that Non-Gynae certainly has been the
Cinderella of Cytology, maybe it will blossom under the control of
Histology. I say this as primarily a 'Cytologist' who also has an
interest in Histology; my job entails not only managing the Department
but Primary Screening, Checking and carrying out the 'cut up'. I also
work in the Evenings in Central London screening LBC; I hope I have
balanced view deviod of partisan bigotry.

Mr Kemlo Rogerson MSc DMS MIBiol CBiol FIBMS

Tel: 0208 970 8414

Mob: 07830 196072 

Mobile E-Mail kemlorogerson <@t> 3mail.com                     

FAX & Answer Phone 0871 242 8094

E-mail Accounts:  

             kemlo <@t> tiscali.co.uk or 

             kemlo1 <@t> btinternet.com 

Disclaimer: The information contained in this message and/or any
attachments(s) may be of a private and confidential nature, and is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee. If you have received
this message in error or feel you should not have been the intended
recipient, please return it and any attachments to the sender
immediately. All messages relating to this communication should then be
deleted from your system. Unauthorised usage, copying, disclosure or
alteration of this message and/or attachment(s) is strictly prohibited.
Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust will not be held
responsible for any direct or indirect damages which may arise from
alteration of this message or any attachment(s), by a third party or
resulting from the transmission of a virus.

-----Original Message-----
From: NICK KIRK [mailto:nick.kirk3 <@t> btopenworld.com] 
Sent: 22 April 2004 09:31
To: Kemlo Rogerson; histonet <@t> pathology.swmed.edu
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Pathology modernisation

Kemlo

We are developing the sort of centralised Gynae cytology network you
describe, here in sunny Cambridgeshire with a centralised Gynae
preparation/staining/screening laboratory based in a new building in
Newmarket. Currently this serves all of Cambridge and West Suffolk and
West Cambridgeshire (us here in Huntingdon) will be joining in at a
later date.
The Non-gynae however, has remained where it has always been at the
original labs and the prep work etc is now being done by Histology staff
instead of Cytology staff.
I think the idea is to keep it close to the Pathologists who are mainly
based at the original hospitals (Addenbrooke's and West Suffolk).
Changing from conventional smears to LBC in Gynae is going to be hard
enough as it is without involving Non-gynae, at least in the first
instance, although there are obvious merits in including Non-Gynae
specimens as well.
>From what I understand, you can already do a certain amount of Non-Gynae
specimens such as body cavity fluids etc on the conventional LBC
machines.

Interesting times I think.

Nick Kirk
Histopathology
Hinchingbrooke Hospital
Huntingdon
England

Kemlo Rogerson <kemlo <@t> tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

Leaving behind Terry's fixation on fixation I would like, for once, to
ask a serious question. 

Pathology modernisation in London appears to be 'ahead of the game', I
assume because in London Pathology modernisation was already happening
before it became a National Sport. The advent of LBC means that, to
justfy a Processor, then Labs may have to merge or employ a 'hub and
spoke' method of delivering Cervical Cytology. I don't wish to get into
a LBC debate as I have had enough of that to last me a lifetime. I am
assuming that what I have just said is the future; collaboration or
merging to produce a workload that can use the capacity of T3000,
multiple T2000 or a SurePath processor. 

But where does Non Gynae stand in all this? Traditionally, it has been
the remit of the Cytology Lab to service Pathology's Non-Gynae
commitment, but is that logical? I assume Non-Gynae will be served by
either a T2000 or something SurePath can come up with; it may be we stay
with traditional methods. My question is, given that many histological
techniques are carried out on Non-Gynae specimens, could Non-Gynae sit
within Histology. It would divorce it from the 'Pap Factory' scenario
and could place it fairly and squarely where, in my opinion, it belongs.
Could Non-Gynae Cytology actually find its 'place in the sun' if it was
within the Histology Department of Cell Path? 

Mr Kemlo Rogerson MSc DMS MIBiol CBiol FIBMS 
Sho Dan BSK 
Tel: 0208 970 8414 
Mob: 07830 196072 
Mobile E-Mail kemlorogerson <@t> 3mail.com 
FAX & Answer Phone 0871 242 8094 
E-mail Accounts: 
kemlo <@t> tiscali.co.uk or 
kemlo1 <@t> btinternet.com 
Disclaimer: The information contained in this message and/or any
attachments(s) may be of a private and confidential nature, and is
intended solely for the attention of the addressee. If you have received
this message in error or feel you should not have been the intended
recipient, please return it and any attachments to the sender
immediately. All messages relating to this communication should then be
deleted from your system. Unauthorised usage, copying, disclosure or
alteration of this message and/or attachment(s) is strictly prohibited.
Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust will not be held
responsible for any direct or indirect damages which may arise from
alteration of this message or any attachment(s), by a third party or
resulting from the transmission of a virus. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Steven
E. Slap 
Sent: 21 April 2004 20:09 
To: Marshall Terry Dr,Consultant Histopathologist; Kemlo Rogerson; kevin
williams; histonet <@t> pathology.swmed.edu 
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Microwave Processing 

Hello again HistoNetters 

Yes, there are these hybrid mixtures called coagulative fixatives. 
They are usually combinations of ethyl alcohol and polyethylene 
glycol, and, occasionally, acetic acid. They do not cross-link 
proteins. The PEG helps prevent the shrinkage associated with the 
use of ethanol as a fixative. 

The advantage of all these mixtures is that, no cross-linking having 
taken place, no subsequent antigen retrieval (or "unmasking") of the 
proteins would be necessary for IHC. Dr. Boon has a good chapter on 
them in support of her "Boon-Fix". 

To muddy the waters further, there are still other non-formalin 
fixatives, which are neither coagulative fixatives, nor cross-linking 
fixatives, based on glyoxal, such as Anatech's "Prefer", but which 
still are said to chemically "fix" the tissue. I'll leave the 
mechanism of their chemistry to the experts. 

best regards, 
Steven Slap 

At 3:51 PM +0100 4/21/04, Marshall Terry Dr, Consultant Histopathologist
wrote: 
>Kemlo asks: 
> 
>"Am I talking a load of..........." 
> 
>Inevitably:-) 
> 
>Kemlo, 
> 
>You talk as if formalin was the only fixative. What about the group 
>called, oddly enough, coagulative fixatives? Now .... I wonder how they

>work. Let me see ...... Furthermore, you flit between the several 
>different subjects in an unstructured way. 

_______________________________________________ 
Histonet mailing list 
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet 

_____ 

=48017&partner=hotbar> Upgrade Your Email - Click here! 

_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet