Peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets are important parameters for monitoring immune status; however, lymphocyte subset detection is time-consuming and error-prone. This study aimed to explore a highly efficient and clinically useful autoverification system for lymphocyte subset assays performed on the flow cytometry platform.
A total of 94,402 lymphocyte subset test results were collected. To establish the limited-range rules, 80,427 results were first used (69,135 T lymphocyte subset tests and 11,292 NK, B, T lymphocyte tests), of which 15,000 T lymphocyte subset tests from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected patients were used to set customized limited-range rules for HIV infected patients. Subsequently, 13,975 results were used for historical data validation and online test validation.
Three key autoverification rules were established, including limited-range, delta-check, and logical rules. Guidelines for addressing the issues that trigger these rules were summarized. The historical data during the validation phase showed that the total autoverification passing rate of lymphocyte subset assays was 69.65% (6,941/9,966), with a 67.93% (5,268/7,755) passing rate for T lymphocyte subset tests and 75.67% (1,673/2,211) for NK, B, T lymphocyte tests. For online test validation, the total autoverification passing rate was 75.26% (3,017/4,009), with 73.23% (2,191/2,992) for the T lymphocyte subset test and 81.22% (826/1,017) for the NK, B, T lymphocyte test. The turnaround time (TAT) was reduced from 228 to 167 min using the autoverification system.
The autoverification system based on the laboratory information system for lymphocyte subset assays reduced TAT and the number of error reports and helped in the identification of abnormal cell populations that may offer clues for clinical interventions.
This research was supported by the Social Development Program from Shenyang Science and Technology Bureau, China (Grant No. 20-205-4-005).
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
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.
Informed consent: Not applicable.
Ethical approval: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University (2021 No. 247).
1. Randell, EW, Yenice, S, Khine Wamono, AA, Orth, M. Autoverification of test results in the core clinical laboratory. Clin Biochem 2019;73:11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.08.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Durant, TJS, Merwede, J, Reynolds, J, Peaper, DR. Optimization of turnaround time for group A streptococcus PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2019;57:e00619-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00619-19.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Wongkrajang, P, Reesukumal, K, Pratumvinit, B. Increased effectiveness of urinalysis testing via the integration of automated instrumentation, the lean management approach, and autoverification. J Clin Lab Anal 2020;34:e23029. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.23029.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
4. Demirci, F, Akan, P, Kume, T, Sisman, AR, Erbayraktar, Z, Sevinc, S. Artificial neural network approach in laboratory test reporting. Am J Clin Pathol 2016;146:227–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqw104.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Li, J, Cheng, B, Yang, L, Zhao, Y, Pan, M, Zheng, G, et al.. Development and implementation of autoverification rules for ELISA results of HBV serological markers. J Lab Autom 2016;21:642–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/2211068215601612.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Mlinaric, A, Milos, M, Coen Herak, D, Fucek, M, Rimac, V, Zadro, R, et al.. Autovalidation and automation of the postanalytical phase of routine hematology and coagulation analyses in a university hospital laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:454–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0402.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Palmieri, R, Falbo, R, Cappellini, F, Soldi, C, Limonta, G, Brambilla, P. The development of autoverification rules applied to urinalysis performed on the AutionMAX-SediMAX platform. Clin Chim Acta 2018;485:275–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2018.07.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Wu, J, Pan, M, Ouyang, H, Yang, Z, Zhang, Q, Cai, Y. Establishing and evaluating autoverification rules with intelligent guidelines for arterial blood gas analysis in a clinical laboratory. SLAS Technol 2018;23:631–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/2472630318775311.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Wang, L, Guo, Y, Han, J, Jin, J, Zheng, C, Yang, J, et al.. Establishment of the intelligent verification criteria for a routine urinalysis analyzer in a multi-center study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1923–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0344.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Wang, Z, Peng, C, Kang, H, Fan, X, Mu, R, Zhou, L, et al.. Design and evaluation of a LIS-based autoverification system for coagulation assays in a core clinical laboratory. BMC Med Inf Decis Making 2019;19:123. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0848-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Lin, X, Cheng, B, Cai, Y, Jiao, X, Yang, X, Zhang, Q, et al.. Establishing and evaluating an auto-verification system of thalassemia gene detection results. Ann Hematol 2019;98:1835–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-019-03656-4.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Yan, C, Zhang, Y, Li, J, Gao, J, Cui, C, Zhang, C, et al.. Establishing and validating of an laboratory information system-based auto-verification system for biochemical test results in cancer patients. J Clin Lab Anal 2019;33:e22877. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22877.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Li, J, Cheng, B, Ouyang, H, Xiao, T, Hu, J, Cai, Y. Designing and evaluating autoverification rules for thyroid function profiles and sex hormone tests. Ann Clin Biochem 2017;55:254–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563217712291.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Rawat, A, Arora, K, Shandilya, J, Vignesh, P, Suri, D, Kaur, G, et al.. Flow cytometry for diagnosis of primary immune deficiencies – a tertiary center experience from North India. Front Immunol 2019;10:2111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02111.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
15. Schreiber, K, Nocturne, G, Cornec, D, Daien, CI. Lymphocytes as biomarkers of therapeutic response in rheumatic autoimmune diseases, is it a realistic goal? Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2017;53:277–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-017-8614-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Ottonello, S, Genova, C, Cossu, I, Fontana, V, Rijavec, E, Rossi, G, et al.. Association between response to nivolumab treatment and peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Front Immunol 2020;11:125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00125.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Yang, J, Xu, J, Ying, E, Sun, T. Predictive and prognostic value of circulating blood lymphocyte subsets in metastatic breast cancer. Canc Med 2019;8:492–500. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.1891.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Day, J, Limaye, V, Proudman, S, Hayball, JD, Hissaria, P. The utility of monitoring peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets by flow cytometric analysis in patients with rheumatological diseases treated with rituximab. Autoimmun Rev 2017;16:542–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2017.03.003.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Llinas-Mallol, L, Redondo-Pachon, D, Perez-Saez, MJ, Raich-Regue, D, Mir, M, Yelamos, J, et al.. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets change after steroid withdrawal in renal allograft recipients: a prospective study. Sci Rep 2019;9:7453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42913-4.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
20. Mandala, WL, Gondwe, EN, Molyneux, ME, MacLennan, JM, MacLennan, CA. Leukocyte counts and lymphocyte subsets in relation to pregnancy and HIV infection in Malawian women. Am J Reprod Immunol 2017;78:e12678. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.12678.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
21. Park, Y, Lim, J, Kim, S, Song, I, Kwon, K, Koo, S, et al.. The prognostic impact of lymphocyte subsets in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Res 2018;53:198–204. https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2018.53.3.198.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Wang, F, Nie, J, Wang, H, Zhao, Q, Xiong, Y, Deng, L, et al.. Characteristics of peripheral lymphocyte subset alteration in COVID-19 pneumonia. J Infect Dis 2020;221:1762–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa150.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
23. Jaye, DL, Bray, RA, Gebel, HM, Harris, WAC, Waller, EK. Translational applications of flow cytometry in clinical practice. J Immunol 2012;188:4715–9. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1290017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Degandt, S, Peeters, B, Jughmans, S, Boeckx, N, Bossuyt, X. Analytical performance of an automated volumetric flow cytometer for quantitation of T, B and natural killer lymphocytes. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0638.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Grossi, V, Infantino, M, Meacci, F, Bellio, E, Bellio, V, Ciotta, G, et al.. Comparison of methods and TAT assessment: volumetric AQUIOS CL and bead-based FACS CANTO II cytometers. Cytometry B Clin Cytometry 2018;94:674–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.21513.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Madhuri Thakar, BM, Joshi, T, Sane, S, Ramesh, P. CD4 estimating reagents in dry format are compatible with conventional flow cytometer; FACSCalibur for estimation of absolute CD4 count & percentages. Indian J Med Res 2013;137:346–55.Search in Google Scholar
27. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Autoverification of clinical laboratory test results, approved guideline. Wayne, USA: CLSI AUTO10-A; 2010.Search in Google Scholar
28. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Enumeration of immunologically defined cell populations by flow cytometry; approved guideline, 2nd ed. Wayne, USA: CLSI H42-A2; 2007.Search in Google Scholar
29. Smet, J, Mascart, F, Schandene, L. Are the reference values of B cell subpopulations used in adults for classification of common variable immunodeficiencies appropriate for children? Clin Immunol 2011;138:266–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2010.12.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Tosato, F, Bucciol, G, Pantano, G, Putti, MC, Sanzari, MC, Basso, G, et al.. Lymphocytes subsets reference values in childhood. Cytometry Part A 2015;87:81–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.22520.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Qin, L, Jing, X, Qiu, Z, Cao, W, Jiao, Y, Routy, JP, et al.. Aging of immune system: immune signature from peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets in 1068 healthy adults. Aging (N Y) 2016;8:848–59. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100894.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
32. Ding, Y, Zhou, L, Xia, Y, Wang, W, Wang, Y, Li, L, et al.. Reference values for peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets of healthy children in China. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2018;142:970-3.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2018.04.022.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Markus, C, Tan, RZ, Loh, TP. Evidence-based approach to setting delta check rules. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2021;58:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2020.1800585.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Lee, J, Kim, S-Y, Kwon, HJ, Lee, HK, Kim, Y, Kim, Y. Usefulness of biological variation in the establishment of delta check limits. Clin Chim Acta 2016;463:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2016.08.007.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Tan, RZ, Markus, C, Loh, TP. Impact of delta check time intervals on error detection capability. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:384–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. Tosato, F, Bernardi, D, Sanzari, MC, Pantano, G, Plebani, M. Biological variability of lymphocyte subsets of human adults’ blood. Clin Chim Acta 2013;424:159–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.06.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38. Falay, M, Senes, M, Korkmaz, S, Zararsiz, G, Turhan, T, Okay, M, et al.. Biological variation of peripheral blood T-lymphocytes. J Immunol Methods 2019;470:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2019.04.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Huang, C, Li, W, Wu, W, Chen, Q, Guo, Y, Zhang, Y, et al.. Intra-day and inter-day biological variations of peripheral blood lymphocytes. Clin Chim Acta 2015;438:166–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.08.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40. Pati, HP, Singh, G. Turnaround time (TAT): difference in concept for laboratory and clinician. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2012;30:81–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-012-0214-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
41. Lu, Y, Leong, W, Wei, B, Yu, P, Wang, C, Ying, Y, et al.. An evaluation of laboratory efficiency in Shanghai emergency by turn around times level. J Clin Lab Anal 2014;29:334–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.21775.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevwntion (CDC). Guidelines for performing single-platform absolute CD4+ T-cell determinations with CD45 gating for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus. MMWR Recomm Rep (Morb Mortal Wkly Rep) 2003;52:1–13.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston