[Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection KittoVentana Ultraview kit

[Sebree Linda A]

We made our detection kit change when we purchased new Ultra
immunostainers so of course validation covered many bases.  If we were
just changing detections, we'd run a couple positive controls for each
antibody with the new detection and compare them to the same controls
run with our current detection.  If the results are comparable OR
BETTER, our director would OK them.  If not, we'd tweak that antibody
for the new detection until it "passed".  A similar procedure is
followed for new lots of detection but we limit it to one control and
one antibody: we've never had discrepant comparison results.

Linda 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kuhnla, Melissa [mailto:Melissa.Kuhnla <@t> chsli.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Sebree Linda A; Joe Nocito; Vanessa Perez; Vickroy, Jim;
histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection
KittoVentana Ultraview kit

Yes I completely agree that this is up to each medical director.  This
detection kit change is considered a major change but keep in mind they
are similar products from the same vendor. Changing your detection is a
very universal step. Think of your validation in a more universal way.
10/10 is extremely time consuming and expensive.  For some antibodies,
it will take years to accumulate ten positive cases.  
You could run some common panels of antibodies you see often.
You could select some stains that are for cytoplasm, nuclear, membrane
staining.
You should pay more attention to any prognostic marker (ER/PR, CD20,
ckit).

Just some ideas.  
Best of luck.
Melissa

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Sebree
Linda A
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:43 AM
To: Joe Nocito; Vanessa Perez; Vickroy, Jim;
histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection
KittoVentana Ultraview kit

Joe,

We are abiding by the CAP 10/10 guidelines when at all possible and then
we compare our results with another method or same method but other lab,
i.e. reference or another clinical lab willing to trade slides with us.
The comparison part is where we are having issues as we, not me
personally, don't want to pay a reference lab for the comparison work so
we rely on others in our "Histonet family" willing to run our slides.
And of course, we're squeezing as many cases on a single slide as
possible.  

As to your question about 5/5 or more, CAP leaves it up to each lab as
to whether its feasible and possible to obtain their recommended quota.

Interesting thread as my days are spent in the middle of this exercise.

Linda Sebree 

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Joe
Nocito
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:35 PM
To: 'Vanessa Perez'; 'Vickroy, Jim'; histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection Kit
toVentana Ultraview kit

We are having a lively discussion about having 10 known positives and 10
known negatives to validate new antibodies. Many years ago we set up 5
and 5 even before CAP thought of the idea. This year's checklist added
the 10 and 10 part, but it is up to the medical director.
What is everyone else doing out there? We are using the Ventana
UltraView detection kits. Everyone who uses these kits know how
expensive they are.
Is 5 and 5 sufficient or should go by CAP recommendations?

Joe Nocito

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Vanessa
Perez
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:37 PM
To: Vickroy, Jim; histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: RE: [Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection Kit to
Ventana Ultraview kit

As far as lot to lot validation that's all we do. Use same control and
compare both.  

Now validating a new detection kit is a whole different story.  Here I
just made a checklist of all the antibodies we do and had the doc sign
off on each stain with the new kit.  
If you want you can do a slide of each with same control one with the
iview and one with the ultraview.
All depends on how your doc wants to validate it.

Vanessa 

-----Original Message-----
From: histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
[mailto:histonet-bounces <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Vickroy,
Jim
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:58 PM
To: histonet <@t> lists.utsouthwestern.edu
Subject: [Histonet] Changing from Ventana IView Detection Kit to Ventana
Ultraview kit

We are trying to decide how to validate our stains when we switch from
Ventana's IView kit to their Ultraview Kit.

I have reviewed the CAP question on this and find the following wording:

The performance of new lots of antibody and detection system reagents
are compared with old lots before or concurrently with being placed into
service.
                Note:   Parallel staining is required to control for
variables such as disparity in the lots of detection reagents or
instrument function.  New lots of primary and detection reagents must be
                               compared to the previous lot using an
appropriate panel of control tissues.   This comparison must be made on
slides cut from the same control block.

Evidence:   Written procedure and records of verification of new reagent
lots.

For new lots of antibodies we have been running the new lot and
comparing with the previous lot by reviewing the control slide from the
old lot to the new lot.

Is this sufficient?   Wording that bothers me is "appropriate panel of
tissues"

Thanks for your input.

James Vickroy BS, HT(ASCP)

Surgical  and Autopsy Pathology Technical Supervisor Memorial Medical
Center
217-788-4046


________________________________
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
prohibited.
_______________________________________________
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

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


The information in this e-mail, and any attachments therein, is
confidential and for use by the intended addressee only. If this message
is received by you in error please do not disseminate or read further.
Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
then delete the message. Although Catholic Health Services of Long
Island attempts to sweep e-mail  and attachments for viruses, it does
not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for
any damage sustained as a result of viruses. Thank you.