RE: [Histonet] Pathology modernisation

From:"Marshall Terry Dr, Consultant Histopathologist"

You are right in your thoughts about non-gynae - it should/could be part of histology. I have always regarded cytology as a rather challenging way of making a tissue diagnosis. So is Gynae-cytology, but it is so vast and so damned boring that it should be kept apart.

That said, non-gynae cytology has suffered from the onslaught of trucuts, endoscopy and to some extent, radiology.
(I *do* wish radiologist wouldn't make histologic diagnoses).

For these reasons, I think it's dying on its feet.

I have written before about how good ThinPrep is for non-gynae stuff, and it looks as if the likely centralisation of LBC machines will mean that non-gynae will continue to be pursued amidst piles of overlapping cells and blood, just when we had this opportunity for it to be otherwise.
(BTW, and for Kemlo, I do mean ThinPrep, as that is the only system of which I have had experience).

Also BTW, for the majority who do not know about pathology modernisation in the UK, its political speak for centralisation and cost cutting - nothing to do with modernisation at all.

Dr Terry L Marshall, B.A.(Law), M.B.,Ch.B.,F.R.C.Path
 Consultant Pathologist
 Rotherham General Hospital
 South Yorkshire

-----Original Message-----
From: Kemlo Rogerson []
Sent: 22 April 2004 08:48
Subject: [Histonet] Pathology modernisation

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 
FAX & Answer Phone 0871 242 8094 
E-mail Accounts: or 
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----- 
[] On Behalf Of Steven
E. Slap 
Sent: 21 April 2004 20:09 
To: Marshall Terry Dr,Consultant Histopathologist; Kemlo Rogerson; kevin
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
>Kemlo asks: 
>"Am I talking a load of..........." 
>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 


 Upgrade Your Email - Click here! 

Histonet mailing list

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>