Red and white blood cell morphology characterization and hands-on time analysis by the digital cell imaging analyzer DI-60

The Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology analyzer is a fully automated, cell-locating image analysis system. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of DI-60. A total of 822 peripheral blood smears were used. The diagnostic performance of DI-60 in terms of red blood cell (RBC) morphology...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-04, Vol.17 (4), p.e0267638-e0267638
Hauptverfasser: Kweon, Oh Joo, Lim, Yong Kwan, Lee, Mi-Kyung, Kim, Hye Ryoun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The Sysmex DI-60 digital morphology analyzer is a fully automated, cell-locating image analysis system. This study aimed to evaluate the analytical performance of DI-60. A total of 822 peripheral blood smears were used. The diagnostic performance of DI-60 in terms of red blood cell (RBC) morphology characterization, white blood cell (WBC) differentials, and the total assay time including hands-on time was evaluated. In comparison with manual slide review, DI-60 demonstrated acceptable accuracy in recognizing polychromasia, target cells, and ovalocytes. However, for schistocytes, DI-60 demonstrated low specificity (10.4%) despite the high sensitivity (97.2%). In the precision analysis of RBC morphology characterization, borderline samples harboring specific RBCs showed inconsistencies in the positive results among 20 replicates. Particularly, 6 of 10 samples showed inconsistencies in the precision for schistocytes. For WBC differentials, the overall agreement between pre-classification results and user-verified results was 89.4%. Except for basophils, normal WBCs showed a good correlation between DI-60 (after user verification) and manual counts. The sensitivities in detecting immature granulocytes, blasts, atypical lymphocytes, and normoblasts were 85.9%, 92.0%, 37.5%, and 77.6%, respectively. Although the total assay time of DI-60 was longer than that of manual review, the hands-on time was considerably shorter with a difference of 144.1 s/slide for abnormal samples. DI-60 demonstrated acceptable performance for normal samples. However, for abnormal WBC differentials and RBC morphology characterization, it should be utilized carefully. DI-60 may contribute to an improvement in laboratory efficiency with increased feasibility.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0267638