Validity of Selected WBC Differentiation Flags in Sysmex XT-1800i

Document Type: Original Research

Authors

1 Dept. of Pathology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran. Iran

2 Dept. of Internal Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Dept. of Pathology ,Imam Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 Thrombosis Hemostasis Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: Automatic Cell Counter devises make the CBC differential very easy and delivering the results in few second. However, the problem with this device is facing a flag requires a time-consuming microscopic review of the specimen which causes unacceptable wait times for patient as well as costs for laboratories. In this study, we calculated the validity of WBC diff flags in Sysmex XT-1800i. In addition, we verified the correlation between manual and automated samples.
Methods
: Overall, 1095 flagged samples were selected in the period of 6 weeks (Imam Hospital complex, Tehran Iran, 2014). The results of both automated and manual counting of the samples were carefully studied and compared. Totally, 624 NRBC flags, 450 Blast flags, 155 abnormal WBC Scatter gram flags, 140 Eosinophilia flags and 468 Monocytosis flags were identified. Results: Considering NRBC and blast flags there was a significant difference between our manual counted and automated counted NRBCs and blasts (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between automated and manual counting of flags for WBC Scatter gram. A significant difference between automated and manual counting data in flags, eosinophilia and monocytosis was foun (P<0.05).
Conclusion:
We propose the NRBC flags to be ignored and report negative except for the neonatal ward, and the Blasts flags to be ignored and report negative in all the cases. The WBC Scatter gram should be report positive. For eosinophilia and monocytosis flags, we propose, the Sysmex results should be considered correct and the manual checking would not be necessary.

Keywords


  1. Parham DM, Ready R, Stine K, Quiggins C, Becton D, North P. Comparison of manual and automated leukocyte counts for determination of the absolute neutrophil count: application to a pediatric oncology clinic. Med Pediatr Oncol 2002 Mar; 38(3):183-6.
  2. Hijiya N, Onciu M, Howard SC, Zhang Z, Cheng C, Sandlund JT, et al. Utility of automated counting to determine absolute neutrophil counts and absolute phagocyte counts for pediatric cancer treatment protocols. Cancer 2004 1; 101(11):2681-6.
  3. Friis-Hansen L, Saelsen L, Abildstrøm SZ, Gøtze JP, Hilsted L. An algorithm for applying flagged Sysmex XE-2100 absolute neutrophil counts in clinical practice. Eur J Haematol 2008;81(2):140-53.
  4. Sireci AN, Herlitz L, Lee K, Bautista JL, Kratz A. Validation and Implementation of an Algorithm for Reporting the Automated Absolute Neutrophil Count from Selected Flagged Specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2010 Nov;134(5):720-5
  5. Richard A, McPherson MD, Matthew R. Pincus MD. Henry's Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. 22nd ed. Elsevier Inc; 2011. P.520-31.
  6. Pierre RV. Peripheral blood film review: the demise of the eye-count leukocyte differential. Clin Lab Med 2002; 22:279–97.
  7. Buttarello M, Gadotti M, Lorenz C, Toffalori E, Ceschini N, Valentini A, et al. Evaluation of four automated hematology analyzers: a comparative study of differential counts(imprecision and inaccuracy). Am J Clin Pathol 1992;97:345–52.
  8. Bain BJ. Diagnosis from the blood smear. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:498–507.
  9. Novis DA, Walsh M, Wilkinson D, St Louis M, Ben-EzraJ. Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review. A College of American Pathologists Q-probes study of 95141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 Institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:596–601.
  10. Lawrie D, Payne H, Nieuwoudt M, Glencross DK. Observed full blood count and lymphocyte subset values in a cohort of clinically healthy South African children from a semi-informal settlement in Cape Town. S Afr Med J 2015 Sep 21; 105(7):589-95.
  11. Froom P, Neck A, Shir M, Haavis R, Barak M. Automatic laboratory initiated reflex testing to identify patients with autoimmune hemolytic anemia. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;124:129–32.
  12. Mustard CA, Kaufert P, Kozyrskyj A, Mayer T. Sex differences in the use of health care services. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1678–83.
  13. Harrington AM, Ward PC, Kroft SH. Iron deficiency anemia, beta thalassemia minor and anemia of chronic disease. A morphologic reappraisal. Am J Clin Path 2008; 129:466–71.
  14. Buttarello M, Plebani M. Automated blood cell counts. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:104–16.
  15. Cornbleet PJ. Clinical utility of the band count. Clin Lab Med 2002;22:101–31.
  16. Jatoi A, Jaromin R, Jennings L, Nguyen PL. Using the absolute neutrophil count as a standalone test in a hematology/ oncology clinic: an abbreviated test can be preferable. Clin Lab Manage Rev 1998; 12(4):256-60.
  17. Warner BA, Reardon DM. A field evaluation of the Coulter STKS. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;95:207-217.
  18. Fujimoto K. Principles of measurement in hematology analyzers manufactured by Sysmex Corporation. Sysmex J Int 1999;9:31-40.
  19. Hiroyuki I. Overview of automated hematology analyzer XE-2100. Sysmex J Int 1999;9:58-64.
  20.  Da Costa L. Digital image analysis of blood cells. Clin Lab Med 2015 Mar;35(1):105-22.
  21. Stamminger G, Auch D, Diem H, Sinha P. Performance of the XE-2100 leucocyte differential. Clin Lab Haematol 2002; 24(5):271-80.