疑似慢性骨髓性白血病的Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800、Sysmex XN-1000及人工镜检对嗜碱性粒细胞计数的比较

IF 0.1 Q4 HEMATOLOGY Iraqi Journal of Hematology Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.4103/ijh.ijh_9_21
P. Chopra, Sunanda Bhardwaj, Anil Arora
{"title":"疑似慢性骨髓性白血病的Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800、Sysmex XN-1000及人工镜检对嗜碱性粒细胞计数的比较","authors":"P. Chopra, Sunanda Bhardwaj, Anil Arora","doi":"10.4103/ijh.ijh_9_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Basophilia can help stratify cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) into different phases and monitor response to therapy and has a significant prognostic value. It helps differentiate patients of CML from those with leukemoid reaction. Basophil counts (BCs) given by automated hematology analyzers are often not reliable. Analysis of peripheral blood picture therefore holds its importance in these cases. In this study, we aim to compare the BC in patients with suspected CML using two automated analyzers with manual microscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-nine ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid samples identified as suspected CML run on Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800 and Sysmex XN-1000 were analyzed for BC microscopically on Giemsa-stained peripheral smear slides by two pathologists. The mean of basophil counts obtained microscopically was considered to be standard. They were compared with BC given by automated counters using correlation analysis and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The age of the patients ranged from 4 to 89 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1 (148 males; 121 females). BC obtained among both analyzers did not correlate (r2 = 0.14). Results of microscopically counted basophils correlated well among two pathologists (r2 = 0.92). Bland–Altman plots showed a mean bias of 2.2% and 2.4% by XN-1000 and DxH 800, respectively, when compared with manual counts. In the frequency distribution analysis, XN-1000 missed all 10 cases with BC >20% whereas DxH 800 missed 3/10 cases with BC >20%. In addition, in the 10%–20% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 6/22 cases whereas DxH 800 identified 12/22 cases. In the 5%–10% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 59/78 cases whereas DxH 800 identified only 43/78 cases. CONCLUSION: With lower BC, Sysmex XN-1000 and, at higher BC, Beckman Coulter DxH 800 showed better performance. However, BC from none of the analyzers can be used alone without consideration of the microscopic results. All smears should be manually counted for basophils in cases of suspected CML because of its importance in clinical management.","PeriodicalId":53847,"journal":{"name":"Iraqi Journal of Hematology","volume":"10 1","pages":"91 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of basophil count by Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800, Sysmex XN-1000, and manual microscopy in cases of suspected chronic myeloid leukemia\",\"authors\":\"P. Chopra, Sunanda Bhardwaj, Anil Arora\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijh.ijh_9_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION: Basophilia can help stratify cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) into different phases and monitor response to therapy and has a significant prognostic value. It helps differentiate patients of CML from those with leukemoid reaction. Basophil counts (BCs) given by automated hematology analyzers are often not reliable. Analysis of peripheral blood picture therefore holds its importance in these cases. In this study, we aim to compare the BC in patients with suspected CML using two automated analyzers with manual microscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-nine ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid samples identified as suspected CML run on Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800 and Sysmex XN-1000 were analyzed for BC microscopically on Giemsa-stained peripheral smear slides by two pathologists. The mean of basophil counts obtained microscopically was considered to be standard. They were compared with BC given by automated counters using correlation analysis and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The age of the patients ranged from 4 to 89 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1 (148 males; 121 females). BC obtained among both analyzers did not correlate (r2 = 0.14). Results of microscopically counted basophils correlated well among two pathologists (r2 = 0.92). Bland–Altman plots showed a mean bias of 2.2% and 2.4% by XN-1000 and DxH 800, respectively, when compared with manual counts. In the frequency distribution analysis, XN-1000 missed all 10 cases with BC >20% whereas DxH 800 missed 3/10 cases with BC >20%. In addition, in the 10%–20% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 6/22 cases whereas DxH 800 identified 12/22 cases. In the 5%–10% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 59/78 cases whereas DxH 800 identified only 43/78 cases. CONCLUSION: With lower BC, Sysmex XN-1000 and, at higher BC, Beckman Coulter DxH 800 showed better performance. However, BC from none of the analyzers can be used alone without consideration of the microscopic results. All smears should be manually counted for basophils in cases of suspected CML because of its importance in clinical management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iraqi Journal of Hematology\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"91 - 96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iraqi Journal of Hematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijh.ijh_9_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iraqi Journal of Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijh.ijh_9_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

嗜碱性细胞病可以帮助慢性髓性白血病(CML)患者分层到不同的阶段,并监测对治疗的反应,具有重要的预后价值。它有助于区分CML患者和有白血病反应的患者。自动血液学分析仪提供的嗜碱性粒细胞计数(bc)通常不可靠。因此,外周血图像分析在这些病例中具有重要意义。在这项研究中,我们的目的是用两种自动分析仪和人工显微镜比较疑似CML患者的BC。材料与方法:两名病理学家在Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800和Sysmex XN-1000上检测疑似CML的269份乙二胺四乙酸样本,在giemsa染色的外周涂片上显微镜下分析BC。显微镜下获得的嗜碱性粒细胞计数平均值被认为是标准的。使用相关分析和Bland Altman图将它们与自动计数器给出的BC进行比较。结果:患者年龄4 ~ 89岁,男女比例为1.2:1(男性148例;121女性)。两种分析仪的BC不相关(r2 = 0.14)。两名病理医师显微镜下嗜碱性粒细胞计数结果相关性较好(r2 = 0.92)。Bland-Altman图显示,与人工计数相比,XN-1000和DxH 800的平均偏差分别为2.2%和2.4%。在频率分布分析中,XN-1000遗漏了所有10例BC >,占20%,而DxH 800遗漏了3/10例BC >,占20%。此外,在BC的10%-20%范围内,XN-1000鉴定了6/22例,而DxH 800鉴定了12/22例。在BC的5%-10%范围内,XN-1000发现了59/78例,而DxH 800只发现了43/78例。结论:低BC时,Sysmex XN-1000和高BC时,Beckman Coulter DxH 800表现较好。然而,任何分析仪的BC都不能单独使用而不考虑微观结果。在疑似CML的病例中,所有涂片都应手工计数嗜碱性粒细胞,因为它在临床管理中很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of basophil count by Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800, Sysmex XN-1000, and manual microscopy in cases of suspected chronic myeloid leukemia
INTRODUCTION: Basophilia can help stratify cases of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) into different phases and monitor response to therapy and has a significant prognostic value. It helps differentiate patients of CML from those with leukemoid reaction. Basophil counts (BCs) given by automated hematology analyzers are often not reliable. Analysis of peripheral blood picture therefore holds its importance in these cases. In this study, we aim to compare the BC in patients with suspected CML using two automated analyzers with manual microscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-nine ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid samples identified as suspected CML run on Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800 and Sysmex XN-1000 were analyzed for BC microscopically on Giemsa-stained peripheral smear slides by two pathologists. The mean of basophil counts obtained microscopically was considered to be standard. They were compared with BC given by automated counters using correlation analysis and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The age of the patients ranged from 4 to 89 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1 (148 males; 121 females). BC obtained among both analyzers did not correlate (r2 = 0.14). Results of microscopically counted basophils correlated well among two pathologists (r2 = 0.92). Bland–Altman plots showed a mean bias of 2.2% and 2.4% by XN-1000 and DxH 800, respectively, when compared with manual counts. In the frequency distribution analysis, XN-1000 missed all 10 cases with BC >20% whereas DxH 800 missed 3/10 cases with BC >20%. In addition, in the 10%–20% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 6/22 cases whereas DxH 800 identified 12/22 cases. In the 5%–10% range of BC, XN-1000 identified 59/78 cases whereas DxH 800 identified only 43/78 cases. CONCLUSION: With lower BC, Sysmex XN-1000 and, at higher BC, Beckman Coulter DxH 800 showed better performance. However, BC from none of the analyzers can be used alone without consideration of the microscopic results. All smears should be manually counted for basophils in cases of suspected CML because of its importance in clinical management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊最新文献
FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 internal tandem duplication mutation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in Kurdistan region/Iraq Biochemical and breakpoint cluster region-c-ABL oncogene 1 polymorphism study among Iraqi patients with chronic myeloid leukemia Subsets of natural killer cells in chronic myeloid leukemia and their relation with some inflammatory cytokines Myelofibrosis secondary to Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A case report The study of long noncoding RNA SNHG5 and PANDAR genes expression in newly diagnosed egyptian adult acute myeloid leukemia patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1