Flow cytometric lymphocyte subset enumeration: 10 years of external quality assessment in the Benelux countries

Abstract

A biannual external quality assessment (EQA) scheme for flow cytometric lymphocyte immunophenotyping is operational in the Benelux countries since 1996. We studied the effects of the methods used on assay outcome, and whether or not this EQA exercise was effective in reducing between-laboratory variation. Eighty test samples were distributed in 20 biannual send-outs. Per send-out, 50-71 participants were requested to enumerate CD3 + , CD4 + , and CD8 + T cells, B cells, and NK cells, and to provide methodological details. Participants received written debriefings with personalized recommendations after each send-out. For this report, data were analyzed using robust multivariate regression. Five variables were associated with significant positive or negative bias of absolute lymphocyte subset counts: (i) platform methodology (i.e., singleplatform assays yielded lower CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell counts than did dual-platform assays); (ii) sample preparation technique (i.e., assays based on mononuclear cells isolation yielded lower T-cell counts than those based on red cell lysis); (iii) gating strategies based on CD45 and sideward scatter gating of lymphocytes yielded higher CD4 + T-cell counts than those based on ''backgating'' of lymphocytes guided by CD45 and CD14); (iv) stabilized samples were generally associated with higher lymphocyte subset counts than nonstabilized samples; and (v) laboratory. Platform methodology, sample stabilization, and laboratory also affected assay variability. With time, assay variability tended to decline; this trend was significant for B-cell counts only. In addition, significant bias and variability of results, independent of the variables tested for in this analysis, were also associated with individual laboratories. In spite of our recommendations, participants tended to standardize their techniques mainly with respect to sample preparation and gating strategies, but less with absolute counting techniques. Failure to fully standardize protocols may have led to only modest reductions in variability of results between laboratories. q 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society

Validation of a Standardized Method for Enumerating Circulating Endothelial Cells and Progenitors: Flow Cytometry and Molecular and Ultrastructural Analyses

“…Data collected in the present study indicate that CVs of the improved flow cytometry procedure fall well within the range of CV values observed in large international quality assay exercises for the enumeration of other rare circulating cell populations such as CD34 + hematopoietic progenitors or some lymphocyte subsets (21,22). Although CEC/CEP enumeration in fresh samples has the advantage of allowing an absolute cell count (in frozen samples, after mononuclear cell purification, the absolute cell count is calculated based on a complete blood cell count obtained at the same time of blood collection; see ref.…”

Circulating lymphocyte subsets in normal adults are variable and can be clustered into subgroups

“…In the case of small populations, which are given similar weight in standardized lymphocyte fractions, small variations in staining intensity can lead to large VARIABILITY AND CLUSTERING OF LYMPHOCYTE SUBSETS relative changes. Others have also found that variability was proportionally greater for measurements of numerically smaller subsets of lymphocytes (5,6,10,12). In the case of absolute cell counts, additional sources of variation including analytical (e.g., the complete blood count (13), and the use of a dual platform method, as discussed above) and biological [e.g., diurnal shifts (14)], contribute to increased inter-and intraindividual variability.…”

Validation of cell‐based fluorescence assays: Practice guidelines from the ICSH and ICCS – part III – analytical issues

“…In a study of lymphocyte subset enumeration, the results indicated no significant difference between "lyse no wash" and a few observations using "no lyse no wash" methods from those obtained using "lyse and wash" methods (38). Some consider, no lyse-no wash methods better suited for absolute counting, for example enumeration of CD341 cells or CD41 T-cells (39,40).…”

“…Simple serial dilution antibody titrations against both positive and negative cellular targets are invaluable for antibody concentration optimization. It is preferable to perform antibody titrations against multiple sample sources that cover the expected range of population percentages and antigen expression as will be observed in the sample population (38). Use of cell lines is only acceptable for the evaluation of antibodies not expressed in healthy samples and to evaluate antibody performance at extreme limits of expected ranges.…”