Improvement of the leukocyte differential performed by flow cytometry using the advanced 2.0 version of the CytoDiff CXP software

Cottard, Antoine; Wagner-Ballon, Orianne; Priol, Jérôme Le; Azzaoui, Imane; Ly-Sunarram, Beatrice; Fest, Thierry; Roussel, Mikaël

doi:10.1002/cyto.a.22497

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within 6 hours after blood collection, the samples were analyzed on a Sysmex XN‐9000 (XN) using the WDF channel and the software version 00‐18, and by IFCM using the premixed CytoDiff Panel and analysis software CytoDiff CXP version 2.0 from Beckman Coulter . The XN‐9000 analyzer was not equipped with the extended white precursor cell channel (WPC channel) …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eighteen different leukocyte subsets, that include blasts and immature granulocytes (IGs), are visualized and reported . The use of a premixed CytoDiff reagent and an auto‐gating procedure simplifies the analysis and makes the method useful in regular routine laboratories . The aim of the present work was to investigate the diagnostic ability and usefulness of the flag “Blasts?” reported by the Sysmex XE‐5000, the flag “Blasts/Abn Lympho?” reported by the XN‐9000, suspect blasts identified by manual microscopy, and CellaVision DM96 (pre‐ and reclassification procedure) by using the CytoDiff method (IFCM) as the confirmatory method for the detection of blasts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method

Eilertsen

Saether

Henriksson

et al. 2019

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A complete blood cell count that includes a differential count of white blood cells (WBCs) is an important test to detect hematology abnormalities and to monitor patients' disease status. Most hematology analyzers identify samples with suspect abnormal cells and report the results by pathology flags. The diagnostic ability of a flag is a function of the underlying technology, and the computerized algorithms designed to evaluate the data. Concerning the presence of blasts, the Sysmex XE and XN analyzers report the flag "Blasts?" and "Blasts/ Abn.Lympho?", respectively. On the XE analyzers, the flag "Blasts?" is derived by a cluster analysis of scatterplots from the differential (DIFF) and the immature myeloid information (IMI) channel. On the XN, the flag "Blasts/Abn Lympho?" is triggered based on information from the white blood cell differential channel (WDF channel). The flag "Blasts?" indicates the possible presence of myeloblasts, and the flag "Blasts/Abn Lympho?" indicates the possible presence of blasts not specified by lineage and/or abnormal lymphocytes. 1,2 Despite the continuous improvement of the hematology analyzers, the flags are subject to ambiguities that require further examination. Several Abstract Introduction: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic ability of blast flags generated by Sysmex instruments (XE/XN) by comparing with immunophenotyping by flow cytometry (IFCM). Additionally, the ability of manual microscopy and CellaVision DM96 (pre-and reclassification) to predict the presence of "true" blasts was investigated. Methods: Blood samples (n = 240) with suspect pathology flags reported by the XE were collected from the daily workload and examined by the XN, by manual microscopy, by CellaVision DM96 and by IFCM (CytoDiff Panel). Results: The ROC analysis for blasts showed an area under the curve of 0.64 ("Blasts?") (XE), 0.57 ("Blasts/Abn Lympho?") (XN), 0.75 (CellaVision preclassification procedure), 0.78 (CellaVision reclassification procedure), and 0.81 (manual microscopy). The sensitivity of blast detection varied between the methods from 0.41 (XE) to 0.90 (XN), and the specificity varied from 0.17 (XN) to 0.95 (CellaVision reclassification). Conclusions:The CellaVision reclassification procedure has a diagnostic ability for predicting blasts close to that of manual microscopy. The blood smear methods show a notable number of false negative results. The Sysmex XN reported a higher rate of true positive blast flags than the XE. Taken together, the CytoDiff method could be a useful alternative to smear examination to correctly identify blasts. K E Y W O R D S blast flag, CellaVision, CytoDiff, flow cytometry, Sysmex hematology instruments | 339 EILERTSEN ET aL.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method

Eilertsen

Saether

Henriksson

et al. 2019

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MFIthe working hours; therefore, part of the analysis has to be postponed and samples have to be stored overnight or over the whole weekend, leading to potential instability of blood samples. Also, optimized fixation procedures have to be determined for whole-blood samples undergoing WBC differential count by flow cytometry, in particular, with Hematoflow™ where an automatic gating is now available (CytoDiff™ 2.0, Beckman Coulter) requiring fluorescence intensity is stable within acceptable limits 8. Also, optimized fixation procedures have to be determined for whole-blood samples undergoing WBC differential count by flow cytometry, in particular, with Hematoflow™ where an automatic gating is now available (CytoDiff™ 2.0, Beckman Coulter) requiring fluorescence intensity is stable within acceptable limits 8.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whole blood was labeled with the CytoDiff cocktail (Beckman Coulter), events were acquired on an FC500 flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter), and analyzed by CXP 2.0 software (Beckman Coulter) as previously described. 8 Samples were analyzed in two centers (Creteil and Rennes 9,10 Both were targeted in different studies for many years and were evaluated either for cellular count or marker intensity preservation. 11 Streck Cell Preservative™ appeared as a better alternative for preserving absolute cell count compared with Transfix; however, this latter enables a better marker intensity preservation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of whole‐blood conservation reagents for Hematoflow‐based WBC differential count: Unsatisfactory results

Wagner-Ballon

Badaoui

Brignoli

et al. 2017

Int J Lab Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceBackground:As conservation of whole blood samples undergoing white blood cell (WBC) differential performed by flow cytometry (Hematoflow) is needed, we evaluated the effects of two commercially available fixatives, namely TransfixTM and Streck Cell PreservativeTM.Methods:We focused on 15 normal samples and on 13 various pathological samples. We compared the two fixatives and cold- or room- temperature effects on various parameters provided by the Hematoflow system.Results:We observed that, even after 2 hours of sample treatment, the conservative methods led to significant modifications of the cell percentages due to substantial variations of the epitope expression.Conclusion:None of the different conservation methods is really reliable for WBC differential performed by flow cytometry and thus samples should be analyzed promptly or stored at 4°C

show abstract

“…Thirteen cell populations are easily identified by the HematoFlow solution, thanks to an exclusion gating strategy among WBC and an autogating software that allows getting rid of any operator intervention . Blood samples are labeled with the CytoDiff™ cocktail that consists of six different antibodies against CD2, CD294 (CRTH2), CD19, CD45, and notably CD36 and CD16.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

High sensitivity of the Hematoflow™ solution for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia screening

Vazquez

Roussel

Badaoui

et al. 2017

Cytometry Part B Clinical

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Improvement of the leukocyte differential performed by flow cytometry using the advanced 2.0 version of the CytoDiff CXP software

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method

Evaluation of the detection of blasts by Sysmex hematology instruments, CellaVision DM96, and manual microscopy using flow cytometry as the confirmatory method

Evaluation of whole‐blood conservation reagents for Hematoflow‐based WBC differential count: Unsatisfactory results

High sensitivity of the Hematoflow™ solution for chronic myelomonocytic leukemia screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About