Abstract
Background
In a generalist laboratory, the integration of the data obtained from hematology analyzers (HAs) with those from multiparametric flow cytometry (FMC) could increase the specificity and sensitivity of first level screening to identify the pathological samples. The aim of this study was to perform a preliminary evaluation of a new simple hybrid method (HM). The method was obtained by integration between HAs reagents into FCM, with a basic monoclonal antibodies panel for the leukocytes differential count.
Methods
Eighty-one peripheral blood samples, collected in K3EDTA tubes, were analyzed by XN-module, and CyFlow Space System, using both standard MoAbs and HM method analysis, and with the optical microscopy (OM). Within-run imprecision was carried out using normal samples, the carryover was evaluated, data comparison was performed with Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots.
Results
The within-run imprecision of HM methods ranged between 1.4% for neutrophils (NE) and 10.1% for monocytes (MO) always equal or lower to the OM. The comparison between HM methods vs. OM shows Passing-Bablok regression slopes comprised between 0.83 for lymphocyte (LY) and 1.14 for MO, whilst the intercepts ranged between −0.18 for NE and 0.25 for LY. Bland-Altman relative bias was comprised between −12.43% for NE, and 19.77% for eosinophils. In all 11 pathological samples the agreement between the methods was 100%.
Conclusions
The new hybrid method generates a leukocytes differential count suitable for routine clinical use and it is also useful for identifying morphological abnormalities with a reduction in cost and improvement of screening for first level hematology workflow.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: The study was financially supported by Sysmex Corporation and Sysmex America Inc.
Employment or leadership: Dr. Ramon Simon-Lopez is the Consultant Medical Director of Sysmex Corporation and Sysmex America Inc. Dr. Mari Kono is Researcher of Scientific Affairs of Sysmex Corporation and Ezio Tirloni is a Specialist of Product and Application of Sysmex Partec Italia.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Leach M. Interpretation of the full blood count in systemic disease – a guide for the physician. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2014;44:36–41.10.4997/JRCPE.2014.109Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Buoro S, Lippi G. Harmonization of laboratory hematology: a long and winding journey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1575–8.10.1515/cclm-2018-0161Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues, revised 4th ed. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
4. Buoro S, Da Rin G, Fanelli A, Lippi G. Harmonization of interpretative comments in laboratory hematology reporting: the recommendations of Working Group on Diagnostic Hematology of the Italian Society of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (WGDH-SIBioC). Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;57:66–77.10.1515/cclm-2017-0972Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Buoro S, Moioli V, Seghezzi M, Previtali G, Alessio MG, Simon Lopez R, et al. Evaluation and comparison of automated hematology analyzer, flow cytometry, and digital morphology analyzer for monocyte counting. Int J Lab Hematol 2018 [Epub ahead of print].10.1111/ijlh.12868Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Vis JY, Huisman A. Verification and quality control of routine hematology analyzers. Int J Lab Hematol 2016;38:100–9.10.1111/ijlh.12503Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Green R, Wachsmann-Hogiu S. Development, history, and future of automated cell counters. Clin Lab Med 2015;35:1–10.10.1016/j.cll.2014.11.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Pipitone S, Germagnoli L, Da Rin G, Di Fabio A, Fanelli A, Fiorini F, et al. Comparing the performance of three panels rules of blood smear review criteria on an Italian multicenter evaluation. Int J Lab Hematol 2017;39:645–52.10.1111/ijlh.12720Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Gulati G, Song J, Florea AD, Gong J. Purpose and criteria for blood smear scan, blood smear examination, and blood smear review. Ann Lab Med 2013;33:1–7.10.3343/alm.2013.33.1.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, Simson E. The international consensus group for hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol 2005;11:83–90.10.1532/LH96.05019Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Rumke CL. Imprecision of ratio-derived differential leukocyte counts. Blood Cells 1985;11:311–5.Search in Google Scholar
12. Buoro S, Carobene A, Seghezzi M, Manenti B, Pacioni A, Ceriotti F, et al. Short- and medium-term biological variation estimates of leukocytes extended to differential count and morphology-structural parameters (cell population data) in blood samples obtained from healthy people. Clin Chim Acta 2017;473:147–56.10.1016/j.cca.2017.07.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Kawai Y, Nagai Y, Ogawa E, Kondo H. Japanese Society for Laboratory Hematology flow cytometric reference method of determining the differential leukocyte count: external quality assurance using fresh blood samples. Int J Lab Hematol 2017;39:202–22.10.1111/ijlh.12607Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Roussel M, Benard C, Ly-Sunnaram B, Fest T. Refining the white blood cell differential: the first flow cytometry routine application. Cytometry A 2010;77:552–63.10.1002/cyto.a.20893Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Roussel M, Davis BH, Fest T, Wood BL, International Council for Standardization in Hematology (ICSH). Toward a reference method for leukocyte differential counts in blood: comparison of three flow cytometric candidate methods. Cytometry A 2012;81:973–82.10.1002/cyto.a.22092Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Chabot-Richards DS, George TI. White blood cell counts: reference methodology. Clin Lab Med 2015;35:11–24.10.1016/j.cll.2014.10.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Allou K, Vial JP, Béné MC, Lacombe F. The routine leukocyte differential flow cytometry™ method: a new flagging system for automatic validation. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2015;88:375–84.10.1002/cyto.b.21242Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Faucher JL, Lacronique-Gazaille C, Frébet E, Trimoreau F, Donnard M, Bordessoule D, et al. “6 Markers/5 colors” extended white blood cell differential by flow cytometry. Cytometry A 2007;71:934–44.10.1002/cyto.a.20457Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference leukocyte (WBC) differential count (proportional) and evaluation of instrumental methods; approved guidelines, 2nd ed. CLSI document H20-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
20. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Validation, verification, calibration and quality control of automated hematology analyzer; approved standard – second edition. CLSI document H26-A2. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, 2010.Search in Google Scholar
21. Briggs C, Culp N, Davis B, d’Onofrio G, Zini G, Machin SJ, et al. International Council for Standardization of Haematology. ICSH guidelines for the evaluation of blood cell analysers including those used for differential leucocyte and reticulocyte counting. International Council for Standardization in Haematology. Int J Lab Hematol 2014;36:613–27.10.1111/ijlh.12201Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. 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
23. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Evaluation of precision of quantitative measurement procedures; approved guideline, 3rd ed. CLSI document EP05-A3. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
