Re: [Histonet] Pathology modernisation


We are developing the sort of centralised Gynae cytology network you describe, here in sunny Cambridgeshire with a centralised Gynae preparation/staining/screening laboratory based in a new building in Newmarket. Currently this serves all of Cambridge and West Suffolk and West Cambridgeshire (us here in Huntingdon) will be joining in at a later date.
The Non-gynae however, has remained where it has always been at the original labs and the prep work etc is now being done by Histology staff instead of Cytology staff.
I think the idea is to keep it close to the Pathologists who are mainly based at the original hospitals (Addenbrooke's and West Suffolk).
Changing from conventional smears to LBC in Gynae is going to be hard enough as it is without involving Non-gynae, at least in the first instance, although there are obvious merits in including Non-Gynae specimens as well.
>From what I understand, you can already do a certain amount of Non-Gynae specimens such as body cavity fluids etc on the conventional LBC machines.
Interesting times I think.
Nick Kirk
Hinchingbrooke Hospital

Kemlo Rogerson  wrote:
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 


=48017&partner=hotbar> Upgrade Your Email - Click here! 

Histonet mailing list
Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>