[Histonet] Expiration date

Amos Brooks amosbrooks <@t> earthlink.net
Sun Jun 19 13:45:31 CDT 2005

    A couple things come to mind here. Firstly, you must have one heck 
of a good freezer to maintain antibodies from 1080 to 1990. That 
predates the Magna Carta and the Battle of Hastings :-) (of course you 
meant 1980, I'm pulling your leg here)
    Secondly, It is worth noting that since immunohistochemistry is 
becoming so common these days one cannot assume everyone is as 
proficient at quality control as anyone else. So it follows that if an 
epitope becomes less intense in label over time it would not be 
surprising to find a tech that doesn't notice until it becomes 
problematic. This would also hold true for the less commonly used 
antibodies. We often have doctors request a new antibody and the 
confounded thing expires before he orders it a second time. Would I even 
notice if it was less intense than it was 2 years ago? I hope so but who 
knows? Granted this is fishing for a lowest common denominator, but that 
seems to be the way things are going these days.
    I agree that the CAP is a bit too obsessed with dates than with QC 
follow up and it becomes an expensive endeavor for labs to keep up with 
it. I think as long as the doctor reading the case is content with the 
signal on the test and control the CAP should leave well enough alone. 
But the lab should be responsible for making sure the antibody is 
reactive before using it. Let's face it we've all seen a case where 
there is one and only one slide with a lesion of interest on it. In a 
situation like that I'd like to know for sure the antibody is good the 
first time.

Just some things to consider,
Amos Brooks

>Message: 1
>Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:20:47 -0500
>From: "Joe Nocito" <jnocito <@t> satx.rr.com>
>Subject: Here I go again[Histonet] Expiration date
>To: "Katia Cristina Catunda" <kccatunda <@t> uol.com.br>,	"histonet"
>	<histonet <@t> pathology.swmed.edu>
>Message-ID: <009701c5742a$118674c0$b4bd0b43 <@t> yourxhtr8hvc4p>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>	reply-type=response
>I've been too quiet for too long. Here I go again.
>I am so tired of CAP and their ridiculous regulations. Every CAP inspection 
>I fight this same question. When I was supervising the Immuno lab at AFIP, 
>we froze concentrated antibodies at -70 for years. Antibodies that were 
>frozen in 1080, were still viable in 1990. That means we were running 
>immunos in 1990 with 1980 prices. What is so wrong about that?
>    We also ran a known positive control with each batch. If the positive 
>control worked, guess what? The antibody was still good. If the positive 
>control did not work, we threw out that lot number and repeated it with 
>another lot number. When we saw that there was a drop in the staining 
>intensity, we  tossed that lot and started another. My experience with 
>antibodies is that they just don't go bad over night, they start staining 
>with less intensity.
>    I think that the CAP board members have stocks in the biochemical 
>companies. Please don't get me wrong, I have many close friends that work in 
>the biochemical side of this, but why would this drastic change in view? The 
>FDA? I doubt it.
>    Maybe I'm too one sides on this issue, but give me a break! If the 
>positive control works in any other antibody, doesn't that mean the antibody 
>is viable?
>    I know companies have to put an expiration date on their products, but 
>come on. If an antibody expires June 30, 2005, does it automatically go dead 
>on July 1?
>    As managers and supervisors, we are continuously bashed about saving 
>money. This would be a great place to start, don't you think?
>    That is all. Thank you
>Joe Nocito BS, HT(ASCP)QIHC
>Histology Manager
>Pathology Reference Lab
>San Antonio, TX

More information about the Histonet mailing list