Digital morphology analyzer

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    SysmexDI-60对白细胞进行计数和分类。有限的研究已经评估了SysmexDI-60在异常样品中的性能,最关注白细胞减少的样本。我们评估了DI-60在确定不同WBC计数中正常和异常样品中白细胞(WBC)差异中的功效。外周血涂片(n=166)分为正常对照组和疾病组,进一步分为中度和重度白细胞增多,轻度白细胞增多症,正常,轻度白细胞减少症,根据白细胞计数,中度和重度白细胞减少症。使用Bland-Altman和Passing-Bablok回归分析评估DI-60预分类和验证以及手动计数结果。Kappa检验比较了DI-60和手动计数在异常细胞检测中的一致性。DI-60对所有细胞表现出显著的总体敏感性和特异性,除了嗜碱性粒细胞.对于分段中性粒细胞,DI-60预分类和手动计数之间的相关性很高,带中性粒细胞,淋巴细胞,和爆炸,并在验证后对所有单元格类别进行了改进。在中度和重度白细胞增多症(WBC>30.0×109/L)和中度和重度白细胞减少症(WBC<1.5×109/L)组中,所有细胞类别的DI-60和手动计数之间的平均差异均显着高。对于母细胞,未成熟粒细胞,和非典型淋巴细胞,DI-60验证结果与人工计数结果相似.浆细胞显示较差的一致性。总之,DI-60显示出在1.5-30.0×109范围内的WBC差异的一致和可靠的分析。在检查中度和重度白细胞增多症样本时,手动计数是必不可少的,中度和重度白细胞减少症样本,以及单核细胞和浆细胞的计数。
    Sysmex DI-60 enumerates and classifies leukocytes. Limited research has evaluated the performance of Sysmex DI-60 in abnormal samples, and most focused on leukopenic samples. We evaluate the efficacy of DI-60 in determining white blood cell (WBC) differentials in normal and abnormal samples in different WBC count. Peripheral blood smears (n = 166) were categorised into normal control and disease groups, and further divided into moderate and severe leucocytosis, mild leucocytosis, normal, mild leukopenia, and moderate and severe leukopenia groups based on WBC count. DI-60 preclassification and verification and manual counting results were assessed using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression analyses. The Kappa test compared the concordance in the abnormal cell detection between DI-60 and manual counting. DI-60 exhibited notable overall sensitivity and specificity for all cells, except basophils. The correlation between the DI-60 preclassification and manual counting was high for segmented neutrophils, band neutrophils, lymphocytes, and blasts, and improved for all cell classes after verification. The mean difference between DI-60 and manual counting for all cell classes was significantly high in moderate and severe leucocytosis (WBC > 30.0 × 109/L) and moderate and severe leukopenia (WBC < 1.5 × 109/L) groups. For blast cells, immature granulocytes, and atypical lymphocytes, the DI-60 verification results were similar to the manual counting results. Plasma cells showed poor agreement. In conclusion, DI-60 demonstrates consistent and reliable analysis of WBC differentials within the range of 1.5-30.0 × 109. Manual counting was indispensable in examining moderate and severe leucocytosis samples, moderate and severe leukopenia samples, and in enumerating of monocytes and plasma cells.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:很少有研究评估了体液(BF)上的数字形态学(DM)分析仪。我们评估了DM分析仪的性能,SysmexDI-60(Sysmex,神户,日本)用于BF样品中的白细胞(WBC)差异。
    方法:在5个BF样本(2个胸膜液和3个腹水)中,优势细胞类型(>80%,中性粒细胞,淋巴细胞,巨噬细胞,异常淋巴细胞,和每个样本中的恶性细胞),我们评估了DI-60的精确度,并比较了DI-60和手动计数之间的白细胞差异和周转时间(TAT).
    结果:DI-60预分类和验证的精度非常好(%CV,0.01-3.16%)。经过验证,DI-60显示出高灵敏度,特异性,和效率(范围:90.8-98.1%,96.8-97.9%,和92.5-98.0%,分别)用于中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞显性样品中的显性细胞类型。对于所有样品,DI-60和手动计数显示主要细胞类型(中性粒细胞,淋巴细胞,巨噬细胞,和其他人,验证后r=0.72至0.94)。在中性粒细胞占优势的样本中,DI-60的预分类和验证之间的一致性很强(κ=0.81)。对于所有样品,DI-60显示出比手动计数明显更长的TAT(min:s)(中位TAT/载玻片:6:28vs.1:53,p<0.0001),在异常淋巴细胞和恶性细胞优势样本中具有显着差异(21:05vs.2:06;12:34vs.2:25)。
    结论:DI-60可能在中性粒细胞和淋巴细胞占优势的BF样本中提供可靠的数据。然而,WBC差异可能需要更长的时间和更高的工作量,特别是在含有非典型细胞的BF样品中。在将DM分析仪用于BF分析的常规临床实践之前,需要进一步改进。
    BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated digital morphology (DM) analyzers on body fluids (BF). We evaluated the performance of a DM analyzer, Sysmex DI-60 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) for white blood cell (WBC) differentials in BF samples.
    METHODS: In five BF samples (two pleural fluids and three ascites) containing a single, dominant cell type (>80%, neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, abnormal lymphocytes, and malignant cells in each sample), we evaluated the precision of the DI-60 and compared the WBC differentials and turnaround times (TAT) between DI-60 and manual counting.
    RESULTS: The precision of the DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (%CV, 0.01-3.16%). After verification, the DI-60 showed high sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (ranges: 90.8-98.1%, 96.8-97.9%, and 92.5-98.0%, respectively) for the dominant cell types in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant samples. For all samples, the DI-60 and manual counting showed high correlations for major cell types (neutrophils, lymphocytes, macrophages, and others, r = 0.72 to 0.94) after verification. The agreement between the pre-classification and verification of the DI-60 was strong in the neutrophil-dominant sample (κ = 0.81). The DI-60 showed a significantly longer TAT (min: s) than manual counting for all samples (median TAT/slide: 6:28 vs. 1:53, p < 0.0001), with remarkable differences in abnormal lymphocyte- and malignant cell-dominant samples (21:05 vs. 2:06; 12:34 vs. 2:25).
    CONCLUSIONS: The DI-60 may provide reliable data in neutrophil- and lymphocyte-dominant BF samples. However, it may require longer times and higher workloads for WBC differentials especially in BF samples containing atypical cells. Further improvement would be needed before applying DM analyzers for routine clinical practice in BF analysis.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号