Multicentric evaluation of the variability of digital morphology performances also respect to the reference methods by optical microscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the important diagnostic role of peripheral blood morphology, cell classification is subjective. Automated image-processing systems (AIS) provide more accurate and objective morphological evaluation. The aims of this multicenter study were the evaluation of the intra and inter-laboratory variation between different AIS in cell pre-classification and after reclassification, compared with manual optical microscopy, the reference method. METHODS: Six peripheral blood samples were included in this study, for each sample, 70 May-Grunwald and Giemsa stained PB smears were prepared from each specimen and 10 slides were delivered to the seven laboratories involved. Smears were processed by both optical microscopy (OM) and AIS. In addition, the assessment times of both methods were recorded. RESULTS: Within-laboratory Reproducibility ranged between 4.76% and 153.78%; between-laboratory Precision ranged between 2.10% and 82.2%, while Total Imprecision ranged between 5.21% and 20.60%. The relative Bland Altman bias ranged between -0.01% and 20.60%. The mean of assessment times were 326 ± 110 s and 191 ± 68 s for AIS post reclassification and OM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AIS can be helpful when the number of cell counted are low and can give advantages in terms of efficiency, objectivity and time saving in the morphological analysis of blood cells. They can also help in the interpretation of some morphological features and can serve as learning and investigation tools.

Multicentric evaluation of analytical performances digital morphology with respect to the reference methods by manual optical microscopy.

AIMS: Optical microscopic (OM) evaluation of peripheral blood (PB) cells is still a crucial step of the laboratory haematological workflow. The morphological cell analysis is time-consuming and expensive and it requires skilled operator. To address these challenges, automated image-processing systems, as digital morphology (DM), were developed in the last few years. The aim of this multicentre study, performed according to international guidelines, is to verify the analytical performance of DM compared with manual OM, the reference method. METHODS: Four hundred and ninety PB samples were evaluated. For each sample, two May Grunwald-stained and Giemsa-stained smears were performed and the morphological evaluation of cells was analysed with both DM and OM. In addition, the assessment times of both methods were recorded. RESULTS: Comparison of DM versus OM methods was assessed with Passing-Bablok and Deming fit regression analysis: slopes ranged between 0.17 for atypical, reactive lymphocytes and plasma cells (LY(AT)) and 1.24 for basophils, and the intercepts ranged between -0.09 for blasts and 0.40 for LY(AT). The Bland-Altman bias ranged between -6.5% for eosinophils and 21.8% for meta-myemielocytes. The diagnostic agreement between the two methods was 0.98. The mean of assessment times were 150 s and 250 s for DM and OM, respectively. CONCLUSION: DM shows excellent performance. Approximately only 1.6% of PB smears need the OM revision, giving advantages in terms of efficiency, standardisation and assessment time of morphological analysis of the cells. The findings of this study may provide useful information regarding the use of DM to improve the haematological workflow.