RE: [Histonet] Non Formalin fixatives
Very good answer and it is what we face now when new products are introduced. We
all want to try them before we truly understand all the possible consequences.
As much as we may,at times want to get rid of formalin it is the empirical
fixative that has been used and tested for almost all of the stains and IHCs we
currently do as a routine in both clinical and research.
Quoting "Dawson, Glen" :
> Non formalin fixatives are, in my opinion, a poor choice for almost any lab.
> Unless your lab is completely self sufficient and would never need to send
> blocks out for testing or consult, you will run into many possible problems
> when you need testing that you do not perform yourself. Since the vast
> majority of labs use formalin fixation, another fixation method will require
> not only different protocols for testing like IHC, but also would require a
> bank of known positive controls processed with the same non-formalin
> In other words, if you were to need an IHC stain from an outside lab, it is
> highly unlikely that they would have all the appropriate controls needed
> processed with the same non-formalin fixative that you are using.
> Some FDA approved kits mandate formalin fixation for the kit to be valid. I
> have a client that used a fixative that "made their H&E's and Trichromes
> absolutely beautiful" but when they needed my FDA approved HercepTest run on
> them, it was not possible specifically because of the fixation. This
> persuaded them to switch over to formalin.
> As histology professionals, it would benefit all of us if we used the same
> fixative. Formalin, with all its faults, is our best bet for a "universal
> fixative" since it is in the vast majority of histo labs.
> My opinion,
> Glen Dawson BS, HT & QIHC (ASCP)
> IHC Manager
> Milwaukee, WI
> Histonet mailing list
Histonet mailing list
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>