Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Blood Morphology Using the Digital Microscope

Differential counting of peripheral blood cells is an important diagnostic tool. However, manual morphological analysis using the microscope is time-consuming and requires highly trained personnel. The digital microscope is capable of performing an automated peripheral blood cell differential, which is as reliable as manual classification by experienced laboratory technicians. To date, information concerning the interlaboratory variation and quality of cell classification by independently operated digital microscopy systems is limited. We compared four independently operated digital microscope systems for their ability in classifying the five main peripheral blood cell classes and detection of blast cells in 200 randomly selected samples. Set against the averaged results, the R2 values for neutrophils ranged between 0.90 and 0.96, for lymphocytes between 0.83 and 0.94, for monocytes between 0.77 and 0.82, for eosinophils between 0.70 and 0.78, and for blast cells between 0.94 and 0.99. The R2 values for the basophils were between 0.28 and 0.34. This study shows that independently operated digital microscopy systems yield reproducible preclassification results when determining the percentages of neutrophils, eosinophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and blast cells in a peripheral blood smear. Detection of basophils was hampered by the low incidence of this cell class in the samples.

[1]  C L Rümke,et al.  Imprecision of ratio-derived differential leukocyte counts. , 1985, Blood cells.

[2]  S A Bentley,et al.  Automated differential white cell counts: a critical appraisal. , 1990, Bailliere's clinical haematology.

[3]  Noriyuki Tatsumi,et al.  Automated image processing: Past, present, and future of blood cell morphology identification , 2002 .

[4]  B Swolin,et al.  Differential counting of blood leukocytes using automated microscopy and a decision support system based on artificial neural networks--evaluation of DiffMaster Octavia. , 2003, Clinical and laboratory haematology.

[5]  Kent B Lewandrowski,et al.  Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system: WBC differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial neural network. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[6]  H. Ceelie,et al.  Examination of peripheral blood films using automated microscopy; evaluation of Diffmaster Octavia and Cellavision DM96 , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[7]  C Briggs,et al.  Can automated blood film analysis replace the manual differential? An evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 automated image analysis system , 2009, International journal of laboratory hematology.

[8]  L. D. Da Costa,et al.  ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Evaluation of the CellaVision™ DM automated microscope in pediatrics , 2010, International journal of laboratory hematology.

[9]  R. B. Dinkelaar,et al.  Automated morphological analysis of cells in body fluids by the digital microscopy system DM96 , 2010, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[10]  Jay S. Raval,et al.  Experience with CellaVision DM96 for peripheral blood differentials in a large multi-center academic hospital system , 2012, Journal of pathology informatics.

[11]  Lik Hang Lee,et al.  Performance of CellaVision DM96 in leukocyte classification , 2013, Journal of pathology informatics.