Annals of Laboratory Medicine

Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine (대한진단검사의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Flow Cytometric White Blood Cell Differential Using CytoDiff is Excellent for Counting Blasts

  • Kahng, Jimin (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Yonggoo (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Myungshin (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Oh, Eun-Jee (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Yeon-Joon (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Han, Kyungja (Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2014.06.23
  • Accepted : 2014.10.25
  • Published : 2015.01.02
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The usefulness of the CytoDiff flow cytometric system (Beckman Coulter, USA) has been studied in various conditions, but its performance including rapidity in detecting and counting blasts, the most significant abnormal cells in the peripheral blood, has not been well evaluated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the CytoDiff differential counting method in challenging samples with blasts. Methods: In total, 815 blood samples were analyzed. Samples flagged as "blasts" or "variant lymphocytes" and showing <10% blasts by manual counts were included. In total, 322 samples showed blasts on manual counts, ranging from 0.5% to 99%. The CytoDiff method was performed by flow cytometry (FC500; Beckman Coulter, USA) with a pre-mixed CytoDiff reagent and analyzing software (CytoDiff CXP 2.0; Beckman Coulter). Results: The average time required to analyze 20 samples was approximately 60 min for manual counts, and the hands-on time for the CytoDiff method was 15 min. The correlation between the CytoDiff and manual counts was good (r>0.8) for neutrophils and lymphocytes but poor (r<0.8) for other cells. When the cutoff value of the CytoDiff blast count was set at 1%, the sensitivity was 94.4% (95% CI; 91.2-96.6) and specificity was 91.9% (95% CI; 89.0-94.1). The positive predictive value was 88.4% (95% CI; 84.4-91.5) (304/344 cases) and negative predictive value was 96.2% (95% CI; 93.9-97.7) (453/471 cases). The CytoDiff blast counts correlated well to the manual counts (r=0.9223). Conclusions: The CytoDiff method is a specific, sensitive, and rapid method for counting blasts. A cutoff value of 1% of at least 1 type of blast is recommended for positive CytoDiff blast counts.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Grant : BK21 플러스 컨버전스 헬스케어 사업단

References

  1. Simson E and Groner W. The state of the art for the automated WBC differential . Part 1: analytic performance. Lab Hematol 1994;1:13-22.
  2. Pierre RV. Peripheral blood film review. The demise of the eyecount leukocyte differential. Clin Lab Med 2002;22:279-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-2712(03)00075-1
  3. Barnes PW, McFadden SL, Machin SJ, Simson E; international consensus group for hematology. The international consensus groupfor hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. Lab Hematol 2005;11:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1532/LH96.05019
  4. Novis DA, Walsh M, Wilkinson D, St Louis M, Ben-Ezra J. Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 95,141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:596-601.
  5. Guerti K, Vertessen F, Daniëls L, Van Der Planken M. Performance evaluation of the PENTRA 60C+ automated hematology analyzer and comparison with the ADVIA 2120. Int J Lab Hematol 2009;31:132-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-553X.2007.01011.x
  6. Eilertsen H, Vollestad NK, Hagve TA. The usefulness of blast flags on the Sysmex XE-5000 is questionable. Am J Clin Pathol 2013;139:633-40. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPDUZVRN5VY9WZ
  7. Briggs C, Longair I, Slavik M, Thwaite K, Mills R, Thavaraja V, et al. Can automated blood film analysis replace the manual differential? Anevaluation of the CellaVision DM96 automated image analysis system. Int J LabHematol 2009;31:48-60.
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1309/XMB9K0J41LHLATAY
  9. Rümke CL. Imprecision of ratio-derived differential leukocyte counts. Blood Cells 1985;11:311-5.
  10. 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.
  11. Kulkarni S, Ghosh SP, Hauer-Jensen M, Kumar KS. Hematological targets of radiation damage. Curr Drug Targets 2010;11:1375-85. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389450111009011375
  12. Saloustros E, Tryfonidis K, Georgoulias V. Prophylactic and therapeutic strategies in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2011;12:851-63. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2011.541155
  13. Fuentes-Arderiu X and Dot-Bach D. Measurement uncertainty in manual differential leukocyte counting. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:112-5.
  14. 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.
  15. Jo Y, Kim SH, Koh K, Park J, Shim YB, Lim J, et al. Reliable, accurate determination of the leukocyte differential of leukopenic samples by using Hematoflow method. Korean J Lab Med 2011;31:131-7 https://doi.org/10.3343/kjlm.2011.31.3.131
  16. Park SH, Park BG, Park CJ, Kim S, Kim DH, Jang S, et al. An extended leukocyte differential count (16 types of circulating leukocytes) using the CytoDiff flow cytometric system can provide information for the discrimination of sepsis severity and prediction of outcome in sepsis patients. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2014;86:244-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.b.21123
  17. Park BG, Park CJ, Yoon CH, Jang S, Chi HS, Ryu MH, et al. The extended leukocyte differential count using the Cytodiff flow cytometric system reveals that higher CD16+ cytotoxic NK+T lymphocyte levels predict superior survival outcomes in patients with metastatic carcinoma.Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2013;84:202-4.

Cited by

  1. Prognostic implication of leucocyte subpopulations in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma vol.8, pp.29, 2015, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17830
  2. REGULATORY INFLUENCE OF BLOOD MONOCYTES ON THE POPULATION COMPOSITION OF GRANULOCYTES AND THE STATE OF THEIR RESPIRATORY BURST IN THE WIDESPREAD PURULENT PERITONITIS vol.8, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.15789/2220-7619-2018-2-201-210
  3. Development of a Novel Flow Cytometry-Based System for White Blood Cell Differential Counts: 10-color LeukoDiff vol.39, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.141
  4. Reference Values for WBC Differential by Hematoflow Analysis vol.151, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqy147
  5. Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method vol.41, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.12980
  6. One-Step Microfluidic Purification of White Blood Cells from Whole Blood for Immunophenotyping vol.91, pp.20, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.9b03673
  7. Nanocytometer for smart analysis of peripheral blood and acute myeloid leukemia: a pilot study vol.20, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02300
  8. Determination of mononuclear cell count using peripheral smear and flow cytometry in peripheral blood stem cell products: A retrospective study from an Indian cancer center vol.15, pp.2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4103/ajts.ajts_21_20