[Histonet] RE: Histonet Digest, Vol 81, Issue 39
Pathology
pathology01 <@t> rccltd.in
Mon Aug 30 06:13:27 CDT 2010
Hi Reni,
I am interested in reading this survey. Please send me a copy.
Thanks & Regards,
S.Naveen Babu
Technician - Pathology
Genome Valley, Shameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 078. A.P. India.
Tel.: +91 40 2348 0422 Fax: +91 40 2348 0420 www.rccltd.in
Disclaimer
Information transmitted by this E-MAIL is proprietary to RCC Laboratories
India Pvt. Ltd. and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not
the intended recipient or it appears that this mail has been forwarded to
you without proper authority, you are notified that any use or dissemination
of this information in any manner is strictly prohibited. In such cases,
please delete this mail from your records.
-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of
histonet-request <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Sent: None
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: Histonet Digest, Vol 81, Issue 39
Send Histonet mailing list submissions to
histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
histonet-request <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
histonet-owner <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Histonet digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: FITC on Ventana Ultra (Mark Tarango)
2. Re: Specimen Retention (BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org)
3. Re: Re: Rapid liver core biopsy processing (Deanna Rhoads)
4. FW: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra (Kasprowicz, Emily E)
5. UNFIXED LIVER frozen SECTIONS (Thotakura, Anil Kumar)
6. Thomas Crowell is out of the office. (thomas.crowell <@t> novartis.com)
7. RE: Ventana vs Leica (Mahoney,Janice A)
8. RE: Cutting standards (Thomas)
9. seeking part time histology job in Ann Arbor, MI (Truscott, Tom)
10. RE: Ventana vs Leica (histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:18:07 -0700
From: Mark Tarango <marktarango <@t> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra
To: Nita Searcy <NSEARCY <@t> swmail.sw.org>
Cc: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Message-ID:
<AANLkTineuix-myMJDKh7pTdN-2FHRkOFBjHF1sJBA2-L <@t> mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Nita,
I agree that buffer should be used as the negative control reagent. If you
have a seperate slide that is cut and put into buffer, just coverslip it
with the same mounting media and you have a negative control. All the
instrument is doing is putting on the antibody and then rinsing it off. So
your negative control is a slide that didn't get the antibody (just
buffer). Makes sense to me. If you get ventana to add a negative control
to their software it would do just the same thing as coverslipping from
buffer, but you'd be paying ventana for it.
Mark
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Nita Searcy <NSEARCY <@t> swmail.sw.org> wrote:
> Any users out there that have had A CAP inspector question negative
control
> on the instrument? In regard to CAP question ANP.21850 in which the notes
> state, "A negative reagent control in which the patient tissue is
processed
> in an identical manner to the test specimen but with the primary antibody
> omitted must be performed for each patient test specimen?"
>
> Below is the response from Ventana regarding "negatives" I am curios if
CAP
> accepts these methods??
>
> In regards to the question below about running a negative control fitc,
> there are two ways to accomplish this.
>
>
>
> 1) There is not currently a place in the protocol to select a fitc
> negative. We can still be compliant by ensuring the negative slide is
> treated the same as the patient. The only reagent the patient slide is
> exposed to, besides the fitc antibody, is reaction buffer. Running a
> negative can be accomplished by applying reaction buffer to the slide and
> letting it incubate for the same amount of time. Next, it is important to
> ensure both slides are coverslipped in the came mounting media.
> 2) The second method is to utilize internal negatives that are already
> present within the patient tissue. However, this is difficult when running
> Fitc antibodies such as IgG, IgM, etc.
> We are looking into adding this addition into the software. Many
customers,
> however have expressed that they would rather utilize the slide drawer for
> another patient slide, rather than running the fitc negative.
>
> Am interested in your comments.
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> Nita Searcy, HT/HTL (ASCP)
> Scott and White Hospital
> Division Manager, Anatomic Pathology
> 2401 S. 31st. Street
> 254-724-2438
> Temple, Texas, 76502
> nsearcy <@t> swmail.sw.org
>
>
> 254-724-2438
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:18:43 -0400
From: BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Specimen Retention
To: "Laurie Colbert" <laurie.colbert <@t> huntingtonhospital.com>
Cc: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu,
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Message-ID:
<OFF64F2C6D.613F7423-ON8525778C.005EFABA-8525778C.005F5186 <@t> shorememorial.org
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
We keep all tissue sent to us for the required time . This includes
hardware and foreign bodies etc., etc.
Beatrice Sullivan, HT(A.S.C.P.) HTL , AAS, CLSP(N.C.A.)
AP Supervisor
Shore Memorial Hospital
609-653-3590
"Laurie Colbert"
<laurie.colbert <@t> h
untingtonhospital To
.com> <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Sent by: cc
histonet-bounces@
lists.utsouthwest Subject
ern.edu [Histonet] Specimen Retention
08/27/2010 11:56
AM
CAP states that all gross specimens and wet tissue be retained until at
least 2 weeks after the final reports are reported out. Do others
follow these guidelines for hardware, foreign bodies, etc, or would you
possibly return them to the patient sooner than the 2 weeks?
Laurie Colbert
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Deanna Rhoads <deannal78 <@t> verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Re: Rapid liver core biopsy processing
To: Robert Richmond <rsrichmond <@t> gmail.com>,
histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Message-ID: <671126.93121.qm <@t> web84305.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I worked at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and we did the liver
biopsies on a stat, 2 hour run, on the Leica Peloris. We got great results
and
quick diagnosis.
Deanna Rhoads HT (ASCP)
Pittsburgh, PA
________________________________
From: Robert Richmond <rsrichmond <@t> gmail.com>
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Sent: Fri, August 27, 2010 12:03:18 PM
Subject: [Histonet] Re: Rapid liver core biopsy processing
Garth Fraga, a pathologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center asks:
>>We do about a hundred liver transplants/year at our hospital, and the
>>hepatologists do lots of liver core biopsies to rule out rejection. They
want a
>>same-day diagnosis on these, so historically they have been rush processed
on a
>>two-hour cycle (VIP machine). They are brought over directly from the
liver
>>biopsy suite immediately after biopsy, so they get very little fixation in
the
>>specimen container prior to going on the processor. Recently we had a
couple of
>>sub-par cases and have moved to a four-hour processing cycle. Do any of
you have
>>any experience dealing with rush-processed liver cores in transplant
patients?
>>What sort of a processing schedule do you recommend? Anyone handling them
like
>>frozen sections?<<
I would address this question to the pathologists at the University of
Pittsburgh, since this is the foremost liver transplant service
possibly in the world. I've consulted their Web site about liver
transplants - quite a while ago - and it was quite helpful.
Garth, if you get a reply, could you post it on Histonet for us all to see?
Bob Richmond
Samurai Pathologist
Knoxville TN
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:15:40 -0500
From: "Kasprowicz, Emily E" <Emily.Kasprowicz <@t> hcmed.org>
Subject: FW: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra
To: "histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
<histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Message-ID:
<66FFB482DE2B624DA30B826C179538214E3AAF2645 <@t> MCD-MBX-3.HCMC.CO.HENNEPIN.MN.US
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Emily Kasprowicz, HT (ASCP)
Histology Lab
Hennepin County Medical Center
701 Park Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-873-3079
________________________________________
From: Kasprowicz, Emily E
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 1:13 PM
To: Morken, Tim
Subject: RE: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra
We have a Benchmark XT and LT, and this has been somewhat of a nuisance, but
not as much as the procedure that you have described. We, too, have to trick
the system. What we have come up with (however, we have not been inspected
by CAP since implementing this, so I don't know if this will be acceptable
to the inspector) is to make a "titer" protocol for each of our antibodies.
The protocol is exactly the same as our normal run, but we have to manually
apply the antibody to the correct slide (we label our test slides with the
lot numbers and "Old Lot" and "New Lot") at the time of antibody incubation.
This was the least complicated way we could come up with to do the "side by
side" testing required by CAP, and it seems to work pretty well. Our problem
is is that we have to wait for a time when one of the machines is totally
free so we can do the titer run. This is, of course, not very often, so we
have to try to do lot comparisons as far in advance as possible.
If we had the Ventana Ultra, it would be a little easier as we wouldn't have
to hold up the entire machine for a Titer Run. We could just run the slides
as needed.
If anyone else has a better way to do lot checks on the Ventana Benchmarks,
I'd be interested in hearing your procedure as well.
Thanks,
Emily Kasprowicz, HT (ASCP)
Histology Lab
Hennepin County Medical Center
701 Park Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-873-3079
________________________________________
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Morken, Tim
[Timothy.Morken <@t> ucsfmedctr.org]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 11:52 AM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra
Part of the Ventana response was "Many customers, however have expressed
that they would rather utilize the slide drawer for another patient slide,
rather than running the fitc negative."
I hope the customers come to understand that the negative control is
necessary, not just an option.
Also, it has come to light that it is difficult to run lot comparison tests
on some automated instruments as CAP is now requiring. From Ventana the
information I have gotten is that the customer has to "trick" the system to
be able to test two lots in one run. Two lots of the same antibody can be
used on one run, but the system will use the oldest lot first, then switch
to the new lot when the old lot runs out. So to do a lot comparison the
customer must arrange to use the last test from the old lot on one slide and
then assume the system will switch to the new lot for the other slide.
Hopefully it works.
I don't use Ventana but am interested because we are looking at the system,
plus I am giving a validation workshop at NSH and one of the most common
questions now is how to do a lot comparison test on an automated system. I
welcome any other information on that process on any system.
Tim Morken
Supervisor, Histology, IPOX
UCSF Medical Center
San Francisco, CA, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Nita Searcy
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 7:30 AM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] FITC on Ventana Ultra
Any users out there that have had A CAP inspector question negative control
on the instrument? In regard to CAP question ANP.21850 in which the notes
state, "A negative reagent control in which the patient tissue is processed
in an identical manner to the test specimen but with the primary antibody
omitted must be performed for each patient test specimen?"
Below is the response from Ventana regarding "negatives" I am curios if CAP
accepts these methods??
In regards to the question below about running a negative control fitc,
there are two ways to accomplish this.
1) There is not currently a place in the protocol to select a fitc negative.
We can still be compliant by ensuring the negative slide is treated the same
as the patient. The only reagent the patient slide is exposed to, besides
the fitc antibody, is reaction buffer. Running a negative can be
accomplished by applying reaction buffer to the slide and letting it
incubate for the same amount of time. Next, it is important to ensure both
slides are coverslipped in the came mounting media.
2) The second method is to utilize internal negatives that are already
present within the patient tissue. However, this is difficult when running
Fitc antibodies such as IgG, IgM, etc.
We are looking into adding this addition into the software. Many customers,
however have expressed that they would rather utilize the slide drawer for
another patient slide, rather than running the fitc negative.
Am interested in your comments.
Thanks
Nita Searcy, HT/HTL (ASCP)
Scott and White Hospital
Division Manager, Anatomic Pathology
2401 S. 31st. Street
254-724-2438
Temple, Texas, 76502
nsearcy <@t> swmail.sw.org
254-724-2438
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:48:15 +0100
From: "Thotakura, Anil Kumar" <a.thotakura <@t> imperial.ac.uk>
Subject: [Histonet] UNFIXED LIVER frozen SECTIONS
To: "Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
<Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Message-ID: <C89DC6FF.8640%a.thotakura <@t> imperial.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear All,
I want to make liver frozen sections but I don't want to fix the tissue.
Once I make the section can I store the slides in -80 and fix them just
before doing the staining?. Can you guys please suggest how to make unfixed
liver frozen sections, how to store and process the tissue.
Thank you very much for your help.
Many Thanks,
Anil Kumar.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0400
From: thomas.crowell <@t> novartis.com
Subject: [Histonet] Thomas Crowell is out of the office.
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Message-ID:
<OF26F160C9.D2272C45-ON8525778C.006B2B9D-8525778C.006B2B9D <@t> ah.novartis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I will be out of the office starting 08/27/2010 and will not return until
09/07/2010.
Please contact Kelly Miner at 617-871-5122 if you have any questions
regarding clinical trial samples.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:30:50 -0500
From: "Mahoney,Janice A" <Janice.Mahoney <@t> alegent.org>
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
To: "histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com" <histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com>
Cc: "BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org" <BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org>,
histonet <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>,
"histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
<histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Message-ID:
<8F0EE4144E8E2F4CA1F6B051A2E5BFEEA7EC969E <@t> EXCHMBC2.ad.ah.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Our Techs load all the reagents and assure that the slides are labeled
properly. With Ventana it is so simple to load the slides, they can go in
any order so there are no mix ups. Each slide has a bar code which matches
the protocol.
I would caution you when looking at pricing. I have heard that if you have
one slide in one of the modules on the Bond, that it needs enough fluid for
5 slides to activate the pump. That would be wasting 4/5 of the fluids
needed for that module. Sounds like a-lot of waste to me. I would ask
about this for sure.
Janice Mahoney HT(ASCP)
Histology/Cytology Coordinator
Alegent Health Laboratory
4955 F Street
Omaha, NE
(402)717-2889
fax(402)717-5231
________________________________________
From: histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com [histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Mahoney,Janice A
Cc: BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org; JayLundgren; histonet;
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
Unless someone corrects me (or even agrees with me!) in FL only a
technologist is allowed to load the IHC machine, so no additional lean for
us. :o(
I would be interested to hear more about the savings though, as we are
preparing to be in the market for a new IHC machine. We currently have the
Benchmark XT.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:08 AM, "Mahoney,Janice A"
<Janice.Mahoney <@t> alegent.org> wrote:
> We love our Ventana instruments too Jay. I don't quite believe the 40%
difference in cost. I'd like to see those numbers. I know I save in tech
time and the instruments are very easy to use. We have histo assistants and
secretaries trained to load and unload the instruments, saving out techs to
do the things only techs can do. Talk about LEAN!
> A little more from a LEAN perspective, the Ultra is the only instrument
out there that is "TRUE" continuous flow. As soon as there is an open spot
on the instrument and the antibody is on board, I can add a slide. I don't
have to wait till one of the 10 slide modules is finished. Leica is still a
batch instrument, it is just smaller batches than the older IHC models. I'm
not putting Leica down, it is a fine instrument but I think it is important
for people to know the facts.
> Jan Mahoney
> Omaha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of
BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:05 PM
> To: Jay Lundgren
> Cc: histonet; histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: Re: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
>
> Jay,
> I currently use the Ventana and am very pleased with the results I get.
> The only draw back is the cost to run the instrument. It can get quite
> pricey. They added space on the antibody wheel but took space away from
the
> slide area. This has impacted our work flow greatly. We are however
looking
> to purchase a second one. This one will have continual through put. That
> should help out with TAT. Hope this helps.
>
> Beatrice Sullivan, HT(A.S.C.P.) HTL , AAS, CLSP(N.C.A.)
> AP Supervisor
> Shore Memorial Hospital
> 609-653-3590
>
>
>
> Jay Lundgren
> <jaylundgren <@t> gmai
> l.com> To
> Sent by: histonet
> histonet-bounces@ <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
> lists.utsouthwest cc
> ern.edu
> Subject
> [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
> 08/24/2010 02:30
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there had experience with both the
> Ventana Ultra and the Leica Bond immunostainers. I realize that most
> people
> have a personal preference as to brands, but I'm not looking for a
> knee-jerk
> opinion (LEICA RULZ!!!!11 or VENTANA FTW!!), just someone who has had
> actual
> experience working on a daily basis with both instruments. If this is
you,
> could you please tell me which you preferred and why.
> I'm currently working for a facility in MT which has narrowed down its
> search to these two instruments. No vendors please, they've already given
> their pitches.
>
> Thanks,
> Jay A.
> Lundgren M.S., HTL (ASCP)
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
> Sponsored by Catholic Health Initiatives and Immanuel, Alegent Health is
faithful to the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, providing high quality
care for the body, mind and spirit of every person.
>
> The information contained in this communication, including attachments, is
confidential and private and intended only for the use of the addressees.
Unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you received this communication in error, please
inform us of the erroneous delivery by return e-mail message from your
computer. Additionally, although all attachments have been scanned at the
source for viruses, the recipient should check any attachments for the
presence of viruses before opening. Alegent Health accepts no liability for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Thank you for
your cooperation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:34:43 -0500
From: Thomas <thomasebrooks <@t> aol.com>
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Cutting standards
To: "Baez, Janet" <jbaez <@t> interscopepath.com>, Rene J Buesa
<rjbuesa <@t> yahoo.com>, histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu, " "
<histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com>
Message-ID: <3s91oeduftdgdyxrqmw3awqw.1282937683422 <@t> email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
"Baez, Janet" <jbaez <@t> interscopepath.com> wrote:
>Hi Rene,
>
>I am interested in reading this survey. Please send me a copy.
>
>Thank you.
>Janet Baez
>Interscope Pathology Medical Group
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Rene J Buesa
>Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 8:28 AM
>To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu; histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com
>Subject: Re: [Histonet] Cutting standards
>
>The averages from a survey of 325 histolabs is 50 blocks/hour to embed and
24 blocks/hour to cut.
>If interested I can send you an article about this.
>RenC) J.
>
>--- On Fri, 8/27/10, histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com
<histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com <histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com>
>Subject: [Histonet] Cutting standards
>To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
>Date: Friday, August 27, 2010, 9:50 AM
>
>
>I know this question has been asked before ... Can anyone share with me
what
>they are actually using as a cutting/embedding standard for your techs?B
For
>instance, how many seconds (mins?) do you allow for embedding a block?B
How
>many seconds(mins?) do you allow for cutting a block?
>
>For simplicity here, I am looking at the "plop and drop" type specimens, ie
>larger specimens that don't require specific orientation and can be placed
>in a mold easily.B These types of blocks will generally have one section
on
>one slide.B I am trying to find out if the standard I have for my techs is
>too tough or too lenient on them.B I allow 45 seconds to embed such a
block
>and another 45 seconds to section that same block.
>
>How does that fit with what you guys are all doing?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Michelle
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Histonet mailing list
>Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
>http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Histonet mailing list
>Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
>http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>_______________________________________________
>Histonet mailing list
>Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
>http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:16:56 -0700
From: "Truscott, Tom" <ttruscot <@t> vetmed.wsu.edu>
Subject: [Histonet] seeking part time histology job in Ann Arbor, MI
To: "histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
<histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
Message-ID:
<44F1D6D7EB8CC84F92859EE5C4E6ECB4011374407D8E <@t> CVMMBX.vetmed.wsu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi All, My coworker, Joy, is moving to Ann Arbor in Oct. and would be
interested in part time histology or pharmacy aide work while she attends
classes. She has been working 7 years in fluorescent and automated IHC in a
research setting. In China, she also obtained her PHD in Chinese Medicine. I
can give you her contact info, if you know of a position. Thankyou, Tom
Truscott
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 10:33:57 -0400
From: <histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com>
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
To: "'Mahoney,Janice A'" <Janice.Mahoney <@t> alegent.org>
Cc: BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org, 'histonet'
<histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>,
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Message-ID: <9BA66B182D6448DB8B2382CCB1DD9DF0 <@t> hopperPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Is there anyone in FL who can confirm (or refute) my thoughts on whether or
not a lab aide can load the IHC machine if a tech set up the labels for the
automated staining? And if they can load it, is there any documentation to
support this, just to keep my lab honest?
Thanks!
Michelle
-----Original Message-----
From: Mahoney,Janice A [mailto:Janice.Mahoney <@t> alegent.org]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:31 PM
To: histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com
Cc: BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org; JayLundgren; histonet;
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
Our Techs load all the reagents and assure that the slides are labeled
properly. With Ventana it is so simple to load the slides, they can go in
any order so there are no mix ups. Each slide has a bar code which matches
the protocol.
I would caution you when looking at pricing. I have heard that if you have
one slide in one of the modules on the Bond, that it needs enough fluid for
5 slides to activate the pump. That would be wasting 4/5 of the fluids
needed for that module. Sounds like a-lot of waste to me. I would ask
about this for sure. Janice Mahoney HT(ASCP) Histology/Cytology Coordinator
Alegent Health Laboratory 4955 F Street Omaha, NE (402)717-2889
fax(402)717-5231 ________________________________________
From: histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com [histotech <@t> imagesbyhopper.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Mahoney,Janice A
Cc: BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org; JayLundgren; histonet;
histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: Re: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
Unless someone corrects me (or even agrees with me!) in FL only a
technologist is allowed to load the IHC machine, so no additional lean for
us. :o(
I would be interested to hear more about the savings though, as we are
preparing to be in the market for a new IHC machine. We currently have the
Benchmark XT.
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:08 AM, "Mahoney,Janice A"
<Janice.Mahoney <@t> alegent.org> wrote:
> We love our Ventana instruments too Jay. I don't quite believe the
> 40% difference in cost. I'd like to see those numbers. I know I save
> in tech time and the instruments are very easy to use. We have histo
> assistants and secretaries trained to load and unload the instruments,
> saving out techs to do the things only techs can do. Talk about LEAN!
> A little more from a LEAN perspective, the Ultra is the only
> instrument out there that is "TRUE" continuous flow. As soon as there
> is an open spot on the instrument and the antibody is on board, I can
> add a slide. I don't have to wait till one of the 10 slide modules is
> finished. Leica is still a batch instrument, it is just smaller
> batches than the older IHC models. I'm not putting Leica down, it is a
> fine instrument but I think it is important for people to know the
> facts. Jan Mahoney Omaha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> [mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of
BSullivan <@t> shorememorial.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:05 PM
> To: Jay Lundgren
> Cc: histonet; histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> Subject: Re: [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
>
> Jay,
> I currently use the Ventana and am very pleased with the results I
> get. The only draw back is the cost to run the instrument. It can get
> quite pricey. They added space on the antibody wheel but took space
> away from the slide area. This has impacted our work flow greatly. We
> are however looking to purchase a second one. This one will have
> continual through put. That should help out with TAT. Hope this helps.
>
> Beatrice Sullivan, HT(A.S.C.P.) HTL , AAS, CLSP(N.C.A.)
> AP Supervisor
> Shore Memorial Hospital
> 609-653-3590
>
>
>
> Jay Lundgren
> <jaylundgren <@t> gmai
> l.com> To
> Sent by: histonet
> histonet-bounces@ <histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu>
> lists.utsouthwest cc
> ern.edu
> Subject
> [Histonet] Ventana vs Leica
> 08/24/2010 02:30
> PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was wondering if anyone out there had experience with both the
> Ventana Ultra and the Leica Bond immunostainers. I realize that most
> people have a personal preference as to brands, but I'm not looking
> for a knee-jerk
> opinion (LEICA RULZ!!!!11 or VENTANA FTW!!), just someone who has had
> actual
> experience working on a daily basis with both instruments. If this is
you,
> could you please tell me which you preferred and why.
> I'm currently working for a facility in MT which has narrowed down its
> search to these two instruments. No vendors please, they've already given
> their pitches.
>
> Thanks,
> Jay A.
> Lundgren M.S., HTL (ASCP)
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
>
> Sponsored by Catholic Health Initiatives and Immanuel, Alegent Health
> is faithful to the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, providing high
> quality care for the body, mind and spirit of every person.
>
> The information contained in this communication, including
> attachments, is confidential and private and intended only for the use
> of the addressees. Unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or
> copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received
> this communication in error, please inform us of the erroneous
> delivery by return e-mail message from your computer. Additionally,
> although all attachments have been scanned at the source for viruses,
> the recipient should check any attachments for the presence of viruses
> before opening. Alegent Health accepts no liability for any damage
> caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histonet mailing list
> Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
> http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3097 - Release Date: 08/27/10
06:34:00
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Histonet mailing list
Histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet
End of Histonet Digest, Vol 81, Issue 39
****************************************
More information about the Histonet
mailing list