Abstract:Introduction: Devices such as the CellaVision® DM96 (CellaVision AB, Lund, Sweden) locate and image nucleated cells on blood smears. Using image recognition software, the DM96 also pre-classifies those cells into differential categories similar to the most complex hematology analyzers. We compared the cell counts, differential counts and flagging information gained from a complex hematology analyzer, the XE5000 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan), with information from a minimal hematology analyzer (Sysmex PocHi) plus the DM96. We found that the cell counts, differential and flagging capabilities are similar, but the PocHi plus DM96 advantages include allowing remote review of the blood smear. Methods: 210 blood samples, selected for various abnormalities, had complete blood counts with automated differentials produced by a Sysmex XE5000 hematology analyzer. These results were compared with cell counts from the Sysmex PocHi hematology analyzer, their 100-cell DM96 post reclassification differentials, and with DM96 pre-classification differentials using standard regression analyses and Rumke 95% confidence intervals (CI) as calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method. Flagging by the XE5000 for immature granulocytes (IG9s) and for blasts/abnormal cells was compared to the DM96 pre-classification using truth tables with the DM96 post reclassification as the gold standard. The following translations were used to compare flagging: IG9s > 2 for either post reclassification DM96 differential, XE5000 or the DM96 pre-classification differential; Any blast cells on the manual differential were compared to XE5000 flags WBC Abn Scg; NRBC Abn Scg; Blasts?; Atyp LY?; Abn Ly/ L_Bl? and to DM96 pre-classification % Blasts > 0%; unidentified cells >3%. . Results: Non-differential blood count parameters including white blood count, red blood count, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and platelet count showed excellent correlation between the PocHi and the XE5000 with R2>0.95. Differential-dependent blood count parameters including neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils and immature granulocytes showed excellent correlation between the XE5000 and pre-classification DM96 with R2>0.95. Nucleated red cells also showed excellent correlation between the XE5000 and the DM96 with R2>0.85. For blasts/abnormal cells, the DM96 showed 100% sensitivity and 40% specificity with 0% false negatives. The XE5000 showed 93% sensitivity and 19% specificity with 3% false negative. Two of the false negatives were shared by both instruments and were 1% blasts. Of the three false negatives with the XE5000 that were true positives with the DM96, two had 1% blasts while one had 2% blasts. For immature granulocytes (IG9s), the XE5000 showed 94% sensitivity and 79% specificity with 2% false negatives. The DM96 showed 85% sensitivity and 95% specificity with 4% false negatives. All of the false negatives were for IG9s Conclusions: Pairing the DM96 or a similar imaging instrument with a relatively inexpensive hematology analyzer, such as those commonly used in physician office laboratories, would provide all of the information available from expensive, complex hematology analyzers in high throughput laboratories AND allow remote review of the blood smear findings by experts. Disclosures Broome:CellaVision: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bengtsson:CellaVision AB: Employment, Equity Ownership. Palm:CellaVision: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Performance evaluation of the Abbott CELL-DYN Emerald for use as a bench-top analyzer in a research setting

Performance Evaluation of the Sysmex CS-5100 Automated Coagulation Analyzer.

An evaluation of the CELL-DYN 1700 haematology analyser: automated cell counting and three-part leucocyte differentiation

An Evaluation of the Sysmex NE-8000® Hematology Analyzer

Performance evaluation the new automated Atellica Hema 580 hematology analyzer

Evaluation of the Cell-Dyn 1600 in an outpatient laboratory

Performance Evaluation of Fully Automated 5-Part Differential Hematology Analyzer ELite 580 (ERBA)

Verification of a Benchtop Hematology Analyzer with a 5-Part Differential Count: There is Nothing Wrong with Being Small

Minimal Hematology Analyzer Plus Blood Smear Digital Imaging/ Analysis Provides Better Clinical Hematology Results Than a Complex Hematology Analyzer Alone

Performance of automated digital cell imaging analyzer Sysmex DI-60

Performance of the CellaVision DC-1 digital cell imaging analyser for differential counting and morphological classification of blood cells

Evaluation for Clinical Application of UniCel DxH 800 Hematology Analyzer

Performance evaluation of the new hematology analyzer UniCel DxH 900

Performance comparison of two automated digital morphology analyzers for leukocyte differential in patients with malignant hematological diseases: Mindray MC‐80 and Sysmex DI‐60

Evaluation of Four Veterinary Hematology Analyzers for Bovine and Ovine Blood Counts for In Vitro Testing of Medical Devices

Evaluation of haematology analyzer CELL-DYN 3700 SL

HemoScreen hematology analyzer compared to Sysmex XN for complete blood count, white blood cell differential, and detection of leukocyte abnormalities

Performance evaluation of the digital morphology analyser Sysmex DI-60 for white blood cell differentials in abnormal samples

Validation of the Sysmex XN-V hematology analyzer for feline specimens

A-029 Evaluation of the Analytical Performance of Four Assays Used for Diabetes on the Atellica CI Analyzer

Performance evaluation of the digital cell imaging analyzer DI-60 integrated into the fully automated Sysmex XN hematology analyzer system