Performance evaluation of the PENTRA 60C+automated hematology analyzer and comparison with the ADVIA 2120

Verification of a 6-part differential haematology analyser Siemens Advia 2120i

Introduction

The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive verification of a 6-part differential haematology analyser Siemens Advia 2120i (Erlangen, Germany), prior to its routine implementation.

Materials and methods

Our verification protocol included: precision (within- and between-run), estimated bias (%) as measure of trueness, which was calculated from observed and manufacturers’ declared value, analytical measuring interval (AMI), carryover, confirmation of a limit of blank (LoB), determination of a limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantitation (LoQ). The K₂ ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) patients’ leftover samples were used for verification of analyser Advia 2021i. Acceptance criteria were based on manufacturer technical specifications (Siemens), 2016 state-of-the-art criteria (Vis and Huisman), and EFLM Biological Variation Database.

Results

The within- and between-run precision were acceptable for all parameters and the lowest coefficients of variation were observed for mean corpuscular volume (MCV) (0.3% and 0.6%, respectively). Estimated bias was within the acceptance criteria for all parameters except for MCV (the estimated bias was 2.2% (acceptance criteria 2.0%). AMI was confirmed for all tested parameters (r > 0.99). The carryover estimates ranged from 0.1% for platelet count (Plt) to 0.6% for red blood cell count and were within the manufacturers’ specifications (≤ 1%). Manufacturers’ claims for LoB were confirmed for leukocytes, erythrocytes, haemoglobin, and platelets. The estimated LoD and LoQ were 0.05 x10⁹/L and 0.1 x10⁹/L for white blood cell count, while for Plt values were 2 x10⁹/L and 3 x10⁹/L, respectively.

Conclusions

Analytical performance of the Siemens Advia 2120i meets predefined quality goals and is suitable for routine use in a clinical laboratory.

Evaluation and comparison of the new Mindray BC-6200 hematology analyzer with ADVIA 2120i

BACKGROUND

The Mindray BC-6200 is a new automatic hematology analyzer that quantifies the parameters of blood morphology and leukocyte differential in five populations (5-Diff). The aim of the study was to evaluate the BC-6200 and compare it with the Siemens ADVIA 2120i analyzer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The comparison between BC-6200 and ADVIA 2120i analyzers was performed using 390 whole blood samples collected on K₃ EDTA. For the BC-6200, the carryover effect, precision, and linearity were evaluated. 138 samples were used to assess the sensitivity and flag ability, suggesting the presence of abnormal cells such as blasts, immature granulocytes, or atypical lymphocytes. Flagging results were compared with microscopic evaluation of blood smears.

RESULTS

The BC-6200 analyzer showed a high correlation (r ≥ .97) with ADVIA 2120i for most of the compared parameters except RDW (r = .8350), MPV (r = .7634), Mon# (r = .8366), Baso# (r = .9205), and NRBC (r = .3768). The BC-6200 had better correlation with microscopic evaluation for NRBC (r = .8902) compared with ADVIA 2120i (r = .5677). The BC-6200 has shown high efficiency for flagging blasts (80.4%), immature granulocytes (80.5%), and atypical lymphocytes (69.0%).

CONCLUSION

The new Mindray BC-6200 hematology analyzer provides high measurements precision and good correlation with ADVIA 2120i for most of the morphology and 5-diff parameters.

Abnormal neutrophil scattergram obtained using Pentra MS CRP in the patients with myelodysplastic syndrome showing dysgranulopoiesis

INTRODUCTION

Pentra MS CRP is an automated hematology analyzer capable of cytochemistry using Chlorazol black E, a lipid-staining agent, for white blood cell (WBC) differentials. Pentra MS CRP displays a WBC scattergram according to the cell volume obtained using flow impedance and light absorbance reflecting the Chlorazol black E (CBE)-positive lipid content.

METHOD

Neutrophil scattergrams obtained using Pentra MS CRP were compared between 5 patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and normal controls. Sudan black B (SBB)-staining patterns of peripheral blood neutrophils were subdivided into four types (types I, II, III, and VI) based on their staining intensity and scored by counting 200 cells. Such SBB scores were also compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Neutrophil scattergrams deviated downward in the MDS group, suggesting the decreased CBE positivity that seemed reflect the reduction of the lipid content in dysplastic neutrophils. SBB scores determined in this study were also decreased in the MDS group when compared with those in normal controls.

CONCLUSION

Pentra MS CRP might rapidly generate useful information on dysplastic neutrophils in patients with MDS based on its cytochemistry for WBC differentials during routine laboratory hematology.

Flow cytometric white blood cell differential using CytoDiff is excellent for counting blasts

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.

White blood cell differential counts in severely leukopenic samples: a comparative analysis of different solutions available in modern laboratory hematology

Background

We evaluated the efficacy of white blood cell (WBC) differential counts in severely leukopenic samples by the Hematoflow method and by automated hematology analyzers and compared the results with manual counts.

Methods

EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples (175 samples) with WBC counts of 40-990/µL were selected. Hematoflow differential counts were performed in duplicates employing flow cytometry using the CytoDiff reagent and analysis software. Differential counts were also performed using the DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter) and XE-2100 (Sysmex) automated hematology analyzers. The sum of the manual counts by a hematology technician and a resident were used as the manual counts.

Results

The total analysis time and hands-on time required by the Hematoflow method were shorter than those required by manual counting. Hematoflow counts were reproducible, showed a good correlation with automated analyzers, and also showed strong correlation with manual counts (r > 0.8) in neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes. None of the cases containing less than 4% blasts as analyzed by the Hematoflow method had blasts in the manual counts, but 8 cases of 21 cases (38.1%) with over 4% blasts by Hematoflow had blasts in manual counts.

Conclusion

Hematoflow counts of severely leukopenic samples were reproducible and showed a good correlation with manual counts in terms of neutrophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte counts. The Hematoflow method also detected the presence of blasts. Manual slide review is recommended when over 4% blasts are found by Hematoflow.

Basic evaluation of Pentra MS CRP, a new automated hematology analyzer for rapid 5-part WBC differential and CRP using a small volume of whole blood

INTRODUCTION

Pentra MS CRP is a new automated hematology analyzer that can rapidly and reliably provide 5-part differential of leukocytes (5-Diff) and C-reactive protein (CRP) within approximately 3.5 min using a small volume of whole blood (35 μL).

METHODS

We evaluated the basic performance of Pentra MS CRP and correlations with Sysmex XN-3000, manual microscopic count, and Hitachi LABOSPECT.

RESULTS

Pentra MS CRP demonstrated good repeatability and linearity without any significant carryover for all parameters examined (WBC, RBC, HGB, Hct, PLT, 5-Diff, and CRP). Complete blood cell count (CBC) data examined by Pentra MS CRP correlated well with those evaluated by Sysmex XN-3000 (R ≥ 0.9880). Absolute number of NEU, LYM, and EOS also showed the good correlation (R ≥ 0.9866) between the two analyzers. The correlation with the manual microscopic count was within acceptable criteria. Furthermore, when CRP was examined in hemolyzed whole blood by Pentra MS CRP and converted to plasma concentrations according to Hct, it correlated well (R = 0.9964) with serum CRP examined by Hitachi LABOSPECT.

CONCLUSION

Pentra MS CRP is a convenient and reliable analyzer especially in the emergency unit of hospitals in which the prompt and simultaneous measurement of CBC including 5-Diff and CRP is often necessary.

Reliable, accurate determination of the leukocyte differential of leukopenic samples by using Hematoflow method

Background

Hematology analyzers may ineffectively recognize abnormal cells, and manual differential counts may be imprecise for leukopenic samples. We evaluated the efficacy of the Hematoflow method for determining the leukocyte differential in leukopenic samples and compared this method with the manual differential method.

Methods

We selected 249 blood samples from 167 patients with leukopenia (WBC counts, 500-2,000/µL) for analysis in this study. The EDTA-anticoagulated blood samples were analyzed using an automatic blood cell counter (DxH800; Beckman Coulter, USA) and flow cytometry (FC 500; Beckman Coulter) by using Cytodiff reagent and analysis software (Beckman Coulter). Hematoflow results were selected or calculated from DxH800 and Cytodiff results. Two trained pathologists performed a manual differential count by counting 50-100 cells.

Results

The precision of the Hematoflow method was superior to that of the manual method in counting 5 leukocyte subpopulations, immature granulocytes (IGs), and blasts. Blasts were detected in all 45 cases (100%) by Hematoflow. The correlation of the Cytodiff blast count to the reference count was high (r = 0.8325). For all other cell populations, the correlation of the Hematoflow results with the reference count was stronger than that of the other manual counts with the reference count.

Conclusions

The Hematoflow differential counting method is more reproducible and sensitive than manual counting, and is relatively easy to perform. In particular, this method detected leukemic blasts more sensitively than manual differential counts. The Hematoflow method is a very useful supplement to automated cell counting.

Evaluation of the Sysmex pocH-1001 haematology analyser in an outdoor oncology service

Since rapid blood count analysis as near patient testing is expanding, we evaluated the use of a Sysmex pocH-100i compact haematology analyser in an outdoor oncology setting according to the recently published International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) guidelines. In total, 838 blood samples from oncology patients were analysed by pocH-100i and re-analysed by a high-throughput haematology analyser for comparison (Abbott CD-4000 or Sysmex XE-2100) to evaluate in use imprecision, comparability and vote-outs. Imprecision was less than 5%, except for platelet enumeration in the low range (within-run imprecision 7%). Good comparability was found even for platelet enumeration in the low range (r2 = 0.82). Vote-outs were found in 10.6% of examined samples. In conclusion, the Sysmex pocH-100i demonstrates good imprecision conform with former publications, produces reliable results in normal and in lower ranges comparable to the results of high throughput haematology analysers. In a well controlled management plan the Sysmex pocH-100i is suitable for near patient testing in oncology.

Is there a difference between T- and B-lymphocyte morphology?

We characterize T- and B-lymphocytes from several donors, determining cell diameter, ratio of nucleus to cell diameter, and refractive index of the nucleus and cytoplasm for each individual cell. We measure light-scattering profiles with a scanning flow cytometer and invert the signals using a coated sphere as an optical model of the cell and by relying on a global optimization technique. The main difference in morphology of T- and B-lymphocytes is found to be the larger mean diameters of the latter. However, the difference is smaller than the natural biological variability of a single cell. We propose nuclear inhomogeneity as a possible reason for the deviation of measured light-scattering profiles from real lymphocytes from those obtained from the coated sphere model.