2006 Bethesda International Consensus recommendations on the immunophenotypic analysis of hematolymphoid neoplasia by flow cytometry: optimal reagents and reporting for the flow cytometric diagnosis of hematopoietic neoplasia.

Immunophenotyping by flow cytometry has become standard practice in the evaluation and monitoring of patients with hematopoietic neoplasia. However, despite its widespread use, considerable variability continues to exist in the reagents used for evaluation and the format in which results are reported. As part of the 2006 Bethesda Consensus conference, a committee was formed to attempt to define a consensus set of reagents suitable for general use in the diagnosis and monitoring of hematopoietic neoplasms. The committee included laboratory professionals from private, public, and university hospitals as well as large reference laboratories that routinely operate clinical flow cytometry laboratories with an emphasis on lymphoma and leukemia immunophenotyping. A survey of participants successfully identified the cell lineage(s) to be evaluated for each of a variety of specific medical indications and defined a set of consensus reagents suitable for the initial evaluation of each cell lineage. Elements to be included in the reporting of clinical flow cytometric results for leukemia and lymphoma evaluation were also refined and are comprehensively listed. The 2006 Bethesda Consensus conference represents the first successful attempt to define a set of consensus reagents suitable for the initial evaluation of hematopoietic neoplasia.

Accurate assessment of cell count and viability with a flow cytometer.

BACKGROUND: In this study we developed a method to measure cell concentration and viability in specimens received in flow cytometry and cytogenetics laboratories. METHODS: Specimens are stained with a vital fluorescent dye, SYTO13, the cell impermeant viability dye, 7-AAD, and a leukocyte marker, CD45. After the addition of an internal calibrator microsphere, FLOW-COUNT, the flow cytometer is capable of measuring the viability of nucleated cells, giving a general assessment of leukocyte populations and measuring their concentration. RESULTS: An accurate assessment of specimen quality is an important parameter when performing flow cytometric and cytogenetic leukemia/lymphoma assessment. High quality specimen is desired to avoid the pitfalls of non-specific staining and limited cellularity/viability. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a cell count and viability measurement prior to leukemia and lymphoma assessment by flow cytometry and cytogenetics helps to increase the rate of successful immunophenotypic and cytogenetic analysis.

Use of a blocking antibody method for the flow cytometric measurement of ZAP-70 in B-CLL.

BACKGROUND: In this study we developed a method to measure the amount of ZAP-70 [zeta accessory protein] in B-CLL cells without relying on the ZAP-70 expression of patient B or T cells to normalize fluorescence intensity. METHODS: B-CLL cells were fixed with formaldehyde before surface staining with gating antibodies CD19PC5 and CD5FITC. The cells were permeabilized with saponin, and the ZAP-70 antigen was blocked in one tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70 [clone 1E7.2]. Zap-70-PE was then added to this tube. ZAP-70-PE was added to a second tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube without unlabeled antibody divided by the mean fluorescence intensity of the ZAP-70 in the tube with unlabeled antibody equals the RATIO of total fluorescence to non-specific ZAP-70 fluorescence in the B-CLL cells. In a second method of analysis, a region is created in the histogram showing ZAP-70 fluorescence intensity in the tube with unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. This region is set to 0.9% positive cells. This same region is then used to measure the % positive [%POS] ZAP-70 cells in the tube without unlabeled antibody to ZAP-70. The brighter the ZAP-70 fluorescence above the non-specific background, the higher the %POS. RESULTS: Due to the varying amount of non-specific staining between patient B-CLL cells and other cells, the blocking antibody method yielded a more quantitative and reproducible measure of ZAP-70 in B-CLL cells than other methods, which use the ratio of B-CLL fluorescence to normal B or T-cell fluorescence. Using this improved method, ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the RATIO was less than 2:1 and positive if the RATIO was greater than 2:1. ZAP-70 was determined to be negative if the %POS was less than 5% and positive if the %POS was greater than 5%, a cut-off value lower than previous values published, due to exclusion of non-specific staining. Both cut-offs were based upon patient specimen distribution profiling. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a blocking antibody resulted in a robust, reproducible clinical B-CLL assay that is not influenced by the need to measure the amount of ZAP-70 in other cells. ZAP-70 results segre gate patients into indolent and aggressive groups suggested by published clinical outcomes.