Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Blood Morphology Using the Digital Microscope

Abstract

Differential counting of peripheral blood cells is an important diagnostic tool. However, manual morphological analysis using the microscope is time-consuming and requires highly trained personnel. The digital microscope is capable of performing an automated peripheral blood cell differential, which is as reliable as manual classification by experienced laboratory technicians. To date, information concerning the interlaboratory variation and quality of cell classification by independently operated digital microscopy systems is limited. We compared four independently operated digital microscope systems for their ability in classifying the five main peripheral blood cell classes and detection of blast cells in 200 randomly selected samples. Set against the averaged results, the R2 values for neutrophils ranged between 0.90 and 0.96, for lymphocytes between 0.83 and 0.94, for monocytes between 0.77 and 0.82, for eosinophils between 0.70 and 0.78, and for blast cells between 0.94 and 0.99. The R2 values for the basophils were between 0.28 and 0.34. This study shows that independently operated digital microscopy systems yield reproducible preclassification results when determining the percentages of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and blast cells in a peripheral blood smear. Detection of basophils was hampered by the low incidence of this cell class in the samples.

How Reproducible Is the Data from Sysmex DI-60 in Leukopenic Samples?

“…Comparing five WBC differentials by DI-60 with those by manual count, the correlations were moderate to high except basophils and improved after verification ( Figure 1 ). Several studies have reported that basophil showed a larger variation and a lower correlation because it is a small number of cells and its detection is highly affected depending on where the PBS is read [ 20 , 33 , 34 ]. Similarly in this study, basophils preclassified by DI-60 were unable to perform Passing-Bablok regression.…”

Digital morphology analyzers in hematology: ICSH review and recommendations

“…They concluded that the CellaVision has excellent performance for the five “normal” WBC classes, as well as for blasts . In another study, Riedl et al placed CellaVision instruments in each of four different clinical laboratories in the Netherlands . They were able to demonstrate that the instruments yielded reproducible preclassification results for neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and eosinophils.…”

Digital microscopy as a screening tool for the diagnosis of hereditary hemolytic anemia

“…DM has first been validated for leukocyte differentiation, and good correlations between automated and manual examinations of peripheral blood smears were observed for a number of different cell types (eg, neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes) . In addition, automated morphology analysis of leukocytes has shown to have good interlaboratory reproducibility and is being used and implemented in routine hematology laboratories worldwide to detect (malignant) leukocyte abnormalities. Automated blood smear analysis also has the possibility to analyze the morphology of RBCs without human interference objectively.…”