[Histonet] Re: acceptable rate of carryover

[Gary Gill]

Husain OA, Grainger JM, Sims J.  Cross contamination of cytological smears,
with automated staining machines and
bulk manual staining procedures. With a specific study of the problems of
the Cytotek and the Shandon Elliott staining machines.  J Clin Pathol.  1978
Jan; 31(1): 63-8.

Further development of an individual staining machine is to be strongly
encouraged but meanwhile, using bulk stainers, frequent changing of wash
fluids and staining solutions, particularly leading up to and following the
haematoxylin pot, is essential to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
Certain smears, such as from semen or from serous fluids where malignancy is
suspected or known, must be stained on separate racks. In some laboratories
it is the rule not to stain semen or serous fluids in bulk staining machines
at all and this may have to become the rule everywhere until we are provided
with safe individual slide stainers.

The Ames Cytotek moved Pap smears cellside-down across a stainless steel
platen with grooves through which stain and rinses were metered.
Manufacturer claimed there was a "capillary gap" that prevented cells from
being abraded from one slide and attaching to another.  Dr. Husain stained a
set of Pap smears with a series of single blank slides between each Pap
smear.  The blank slides demonstrated cellular cross-contamination.  So much
for the veracity of the manufacturer's claim.

Gary Gill


-----Original Message-----
From: John Auld [mailto:John.Auld <@t> whnt.nhs.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:21 PM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu; vickroy.jim <@t> mhsil.com
Cc: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] Re: acceptable rate of carryover


Jim

I have a (very) vague recollection of a study done on carryover on an
automated stainer for cervical cytology many many years ago. Don't remember
what it said. BUT IMO there is only one acceptable rate for carryover and
that is ZERO. This may not always be possible but that is what we should
always work to. In my lab any slide with possible tissue carryover is always
recut even if the suspect part is away from the section.

regards

John

John Auld FIBMS MSc
Dept of Histopathology and Clinical Cytology
Arrowe Park Hospital
Arrowe Park Road
Upton
Wirral



Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:40:02 -0600
From: "Vickroy, Jim" <Vickroy.Jim <@t> mhsil.com>
Subject: [Histonet] carryover on slides
To: "'histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu'"
           <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Message-ID:
           <584AE8968B1EE14998210A0D6B97D854055AEE64 <@t> mmcmail2.mhsil.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;           charset="iso-8859-1"

Has anyone ever seen any articles on what is an acceptable rate of carryover
on routine slides?  We have been monitoring our carryover rate and our
pathologists wondered if anyone had ever seen a study on carryover rates.


James R. Vickroy BS, HT (ASCP)
Technical Supervisor, Surgical Pathology
788-4046
vickroy.jim <@t> mhsil.com


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