Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? The French experience.

AIM: To examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data. RESULTS: All eye banks responded and 91% (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77%). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36%) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64%), six applied a "magnification correcting factor" to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55%) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64%) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32%) also graded pleomorphism ("hexagonality"). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.

Multicentric evaluation of the MDR phenotype in leukemia. French Network of the Drug Resistance Intergroup, and Drug Resistance Network of Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

The wide discrepancies in the frequency of 'positive' samples for multidrug resistance (MDR) phenotype within the same type of tumor observed in the literature justified the need for the definition of consensus recommendations. To define standard techniques of MDR phenotype measurement, we ran a large multicentric evaluation of the different methods available. Thirty-six French centers participated in the study, and 742 samples of 2-10 x 10(6) viable cells were sent by overnight express mail between December 1993 and February 1996. The same batches of MRK16, 4E3 and UIC2 were used. Nineteen samples of leukemia (12 AML, 1 ALL, 6 lymphoproliferative syndromes) and six leukemic cell lines with different levels of MDR expression were tested. Five meetings reached agreement concerning the guidelines for each technique, except immunocytochemistry. The 19 fresh samples were tested by each center using one to four techniques among cytofluorometry, immunocytochemistry, functional tests and RT-PCR. Five samples were diagnosed as 'negative' according to local criteria, with few discordant results (0 to 16% of 'positive' results). For all the 14 remaining samples, large discrepancies were observed from center to center, and from one technique to another. No correlations could be found between techniques. Flow cytometric analysis of cells already exposed to MRK16 or control IgG2A, fixed in paraformaldehyde and sent to centers did not reduce the discrepancies between centers in two of the four samples with moderate expression, emphasizing the role of histogram interpretation. The use of alternative monoclonal antibodies (4E3 and UIC2) did not reduce the discrepancies observed. In a second step, the K562 parental cell line, a low resistant subline (K562/HHT100, x7 resistance index to DNR) and a high resistant subline (K562/HHT300, x125 resistance index to DNR) were sent blindly three times, with an increasing level of recommendations for flow cytometry. Dramatic improvements were observed in cytometric results when the result was expressed as the ratio of arithmetic mean of fluorescence of antibody (10 microg of MRK16)/arithmetic mean of fluorescence of control (10 microg IgG2A): the proportion of expected results increased from 61 to 100% for K562, and from 37 to 85% for K562/HHT100. For uptake and drug efflux measurements, the use of 1 h uptake of 0.1 microM of rhodamine, followed by 1 h efflux +/-10 microM of verapamil, permitted an increased reproducibility of the technique from 71 to 100% for K562 and K562/HHT100. Whatever the technique used, concordant results were obtained for K562/HHT300. The immunocytochemistry, using several antibodies (MRK16, JSB1 and C219) gave many non-interpretable results (44%), due to a frequent high background and discordant results between antibodies in the same centers, and discordant conclusions between centers. The group does not recommend this technique for circulating tumoral cells.