Background: The XN-Series (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) have been equipped with the automated digital cell imaging analyzer DI-60, which provides complete automation of the sample processing with automated complete blood counts (CBC), slide making/staining, and digital scanning with cell pre-classification. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the XN-Series as an integrated blood cell analysis system.
Methods: White blood cell (WBC) morphological analysis by the DI-60 was evaluated using 232 blood samples from patients. Routine analysis of a total of 2000 blood samples has been performed to evaluate the processing ability of the XN-Series connected to the DI-60.
Results: The overall analysis accuracy of pre-classification of WBC by the DI-60 was 88.4%. Good correlation was observed between final results of the DI-60 analysis and manual differentiation with high sensitivity and specificity for blasts and immature granulocytes. The sample processing time of the XN-Series, from automated CBC to cell pre-classification, was 38±1 min/single run and 165±12 min/500 CBC samples run (slide preparation rate 15.6%) with no sample hold-up at the DI-60.
Conclusions: The automated morphological analysis capability of the DI-60 has potential usefulness in the integrated automated hematology analysis system of XN-Series.
1. Briggs CJ, Linssen J, Longair I, Machin SJ. Improved flagging rates on the Sysmex XE-5000 compared with the XE-2100 reduce the number of manual film reviews and increase laboratory productivity. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;136:309–16.10.1309/AJCPDLR4KGKAFW4WSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Hilborne LH, Wenger NS, Oye RK. Physician performance of laboratory tests in self-service facilities. Residents’ perceptions and performance. J Am Med Assoc 1990;264:382–6.10.1001/jama.1990.03450030106042Search in Google Scholar
3. Cornet E, Perol JP, Troussard X. Performance evaluation and relevance of the CellaVision DM96 system in routine analysis and in patients with malignant hematological diseases. Int J Lab Hematol 2008;30:536–42.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2007.00996.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Rumke CL. Imprecision of ratio-derived differential leukocyte counts. Blood Cells 1985;11:311–5.Search in Google Scholar
5. Perel ID, Herrmann NR, Watson LJ. Automated differential leucocyte counting by the Geometric Data Hematrak system: eighteen months experience in a private pathology laboratory. Pathology 1980;12:449–60.10.3109/00313028009077108Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Ceelie H, Dinkelaar RB, van Gelder W. Examination of peripheral blood films using automated microscopy; evaluation of Diffmaster Octavia and Cellavision DM96. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:72–9.10.1136/jcp.2005.035402Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Kratz A, Bengtsson HI, Casey JE, Keefe JM, Beatrice GH, Grzybek DY, et al. Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system: WBC differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial neural network. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;124:770–81.10.1309/XMB9K0J41LHLATAYSearch in Google Scholar
8. Yamamoto T, Tabe Y, Ishii K, Itoh S, Maeno I, Matsumoto K, et al. Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system in WBC differentials. Rinsho Byori 2010;58:884–90 [in Japanese].Search in Google Scholar
9. Billard M, Lainey E, Armoogum P, Alberti C, Fenneteau O, Da Costa L. Evaluation of the CellaVision DM automated microscope in pediatrics. Int J Lab Hematol 2010;32:530–8.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2009.01219.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Satoh M, Ishii K, Tabe Y, Yamamoto T, Horii T, Miida T, et al. Influence of the smudge cells to the WBC differential count after storage in a collection tube [Japanese]. J Jap Soc Lab Hematol 2012;13:304–10.Search in Google Scholar
11. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Reference leukocytes (WBC) differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods: approved standard, 2nd ed. CLSI Document H20-A2. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2007.Search in Google Scholar
12. Briggs C, Longair I, Slavik M, Thwaite K, Mills R, Thavaraja V, et al. Can automated blood film analysis replace the manual differential? An evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 automated image analysis system. Int J Lab Hematol 2009;31:48–60.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2007.01002.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Lin MY, Weinstein RA, Hota B. Delay of active antimicrobial therapy and mortality among patients with bacteremia: impact of severe neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:3188–94.10.1128/AAC.01553-07Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, Raad II, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:e56–93.10.1093/cid/cir073Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Simson E, Gascon-Lema MG, Brown DL. Performance of automated slidemakers and stainers in a working laboratory environment – routine operation and quality control. Int J Lab Hematol 2009;32:e64–76.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2009.01141.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Honnma H, Ishii K, Tabe K, Kusama I, Maeno I, Horii T, et al. Evaluation of Basic Performance and Red Cell Size Information of Sysmex XE5000. J Jap Soc Lab Hematol 2009;10:367–74 [in Japanese].Search in Google Scholar
17. Hur M, Cho JH, Kim H, Hong MH, Moon HW, Yun YM, et al. Optimization of laboratory workflow in clinical hematology laboratory with reduced manual slide review: comparison between Sysmex XE-2100 and ABX Pentra DX120. Int J Lab Hematol 2011;33:434–40.10.1111/j.1751-553X.2011.01306.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Briggs C, Longair I, Kumar P, Singh D, Machin SJ. Performance evaluation of the Sysmex haematology XN modular system. J Clin Pathol 2012;65:1024–30.10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200930Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Bitencourt ED, Voegeli CF, Onzi GS, Boscato SC, Ghem C, Munhoz T. Validation of the Sysmex sp-1000i automated slide preparer-stainer in a clinical laboratory. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter 2013;35:404–8.10.5581/1516-8484.20130121Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2015 by De Gruyter