Two-site evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the Sysmex XN Body Fluid (BF) module for cell count and differential in Cerebrospinal Fluid.

INTRODUCTION: Cellular analysis in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) provides important diagnostic information in many pathological settings. The aim of this two-site study was to evaluate the Sysmex XN Body Fluid mode (XN-BF) for cell analysis of CSF compared to light microscopy (LM). METHODS: Two hundred and seven consecutive CSF samples were analyzed in parallel with XN-BF and LM. The study also included the estimation of the limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), limit of quantitation (LoQ), carry-over and linearity of XN-BF module. RESULTS: LoQ of white blood cells (WBC) was 3×106  cells/L; linearity was good and carry-over negligible. XN-BF parameters were compared to LM for the following cell classes: total cells, WBC, polymorphonuclear (PMN), and mononuclear (MN) cells. The bias ranged from 1.3 to 15.2×106  cells/L. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis for WBC showed an area under the curve of 0.98, and the global diagnostic agreement was 95% at a cutoff of 5×106  cells/L. CONCLUSIONS: XN-BF provides rapid and accurate counts in clinically relevant ranges of CSF values, thus providing a valuable alternative to conventional LM analysis. However, microscopic review remains advisable in samples with abnormal cell counts or high fluorescent (HF-BF) cell parameter exceeding 5×106  cells/L.

Performance evaluation of the automated nucleated red blood cell count of five commercial hematological analyzers.

INTRODUCTION: Recent automated hematology analyzers (HAs) can identify and report nucleated red blood cells (NRBC) count as a separate population out of white blood cells (WBC). The aim of this study was to investigate the analytical performances of NRBC enumeration on five top of the range HAs. METHODS: We evaluated the within-run and between-day precision, limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), and limit of quantitation (LoQ) of XE-2100 and XN-module (Sysmex), ADVIA 2120i (Siemens), BC-6800 (Mindray), and UniCel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter). Automated NRBC counts were also compared with optical microscopy (OM). RESULTS: The limits of detection for NRBC of the BC-6800, XN-module, XE-2100, UniCel DxH 800, and ADVIA 2120i are 0.035×109 /L, 0.019×109 /L, 0.067×109 /L, 0.038×109 /L, and 0.167×109 /L, respectively. Our data indicated excellent performance in terms of precision. The agreement with OM was excellent for BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 (Bias 0.023, 0.019, and 0.033×109 /L, respectively). ADVIA 2120i displayed a significant constant error and UniCel DxH 800 both proportional and small constant error. CONCLUSION: Regards to NRBC counting, the performances shown by BC-6800, XN-module, and XE-2100 are excellent also a low count, ADVIA 2120i and UniCel DxH 800 need to be improved.

Comparing the performance of three panels rules of blood smear review criteria on an Italian multicenter evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of blood smear review criteria, by means of three different panel rules, those proposed by: the International Consensus Group for Hematology [41-ICGH rules], the Italian Survey [IS rules] and the Working Group on Hematology-SIBioC (WGH) consensus rules (WGH rules). METHODS: This study is based on 2707 peripheral blood (PB) samples referred for routine hematological testing to the WGH-associated laboratories displaced all over the Italian territory. The PB samples were processed on seven different hematology analyzers (HAs): Advia 2120i, XE-2100, BC-6800, ABX Pentra, XN-1000, Cell-DYN Sapphire, and DxH800, respectively. All the results provided by the HAs were analyzed through the application of three different blood smear review criteria: that is, the 41-ICGH, IS, and WGH rules. Finally, data were compared with those obtained by optical microscopy (OM), as the current gold standard. RESULTS: The overall the agreement OM classification with ICGH, IS, and WGH panel rules is 0.83, 0.83, and 0.85, respectively. The false negatives are 2.1%, 3.0%, and 2.9%, while false positives are 15.1%, 13.7%, and 11.7%, respectively. All the seven HAs showed variable interinstrument performance, as three different criteria for OM review were adopted on each of them from time to time. CONCLUSION: These results presented show that the customization of validation rules is necessary for enhancing the quality of hematological testing and optimizing workflow.

KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline CKD classification rules out creatinine clearance 24 hour urine collection?

OBJECTIVES: The recent guideline for the evaluation and management of Chronic Kidney Disease recommends assessing GFR employing equations based on serum creatinine; despite this, creatinine clearance 24-hour urine collection is used routinely in many settings. In this study we compared the classification assessed from CrCl (creatinine clearance 24h urine collection) and e-GFR calculated with CKD-EPI or MDRD formulas. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study we analyze consecutive laboratory data: creatinine clearance 24h urine collection, serum creatinine and demographic data such as sex and age from 15,777 patients >18 years of age collected from 2011 to 2013 in our laboratory at Careggi Hospital. The results were then compared to the estimated GFR calculated with the equations according to the recent treatment guidelines. Consecutive and retrospective laboratory data (creatinine clearance 24h urine collection, serum creatinine and, demographic data such as sex and age) from 15,777 patients >18 years of age seen at Careggi Hospital were collected. RESULTS: Comparison between e-GFR calculated with CKD-EPI or MDRD formulas and GFR according CrCl determinations and bias [95% CI] were 11.34 [-47,4/70.1] and 11.4 [-50.2/73] respectively. The concordance for 18/65 years aged group when compared with e-GFR classification between MDRD vs CKDEPI, MDRD vs CrCl and CKD-EPI vs CrCl were 0.78, 0.34, and 0.41 respectively, while in the 65/110years aged group the concordance Kappas were 0.84, 0.38, and 0.36 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CrCl provides a different classification than the estimation of GFR using a prediction equation. The CrCl is unreliable when it is necessary to identify CKD subjects with decrease of GFR of 5ml/min/1.73m(2)/year.