Article

The international consensus group for hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis.

Clinical Hematology, Department of Laboratories, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Laboratory Hematology 02/2005; 11(2):83-90. DOI: 10.1532/LH96.05019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In the half century since the first use of automated analyzers, manual techniques, especially microscopic examination of a stained blood film, have complemented analyzer results to provide a comprehensive hematology report on a patient's blood sample. Over the years, as the capabilities and performance of automated analyzers have improved, the respective roles of the automated analyzer and the complementary procedures have changed. Manual action (most commonly smear review) following automated analyzer results is usually triggered by determining whether the results trigger one of a series of criteria for review of results. There is little uniformity among different laboratories on criteria for action. Recognizing the long-standing need for generally accepted guidelines ("rules") which could be applied to criteria for review of CBC and differential results from automated hematology analyzers, Dr. Berend Houwen invited 20 experts to a meeting in the Spring of 2002 to discuss the issues and determine the most appropriate criteria. At this meeting, 83 rules were developed by consensus agreement. These rules were then tested in 15 laboratories on a total of 13,298 blood samples. After a detailed analysis of the data, the rules were refined and consolidated to produce 41 rules that are presented here. They include rules for first-time samples as well as delta rules for repeat samples within 72 hours from a patient. It is hoped that these rules will be useful to a large number of hematology laboratories worldwide. To facilitate validating these rules in individual laboratories before implementation in routine operation for patient samples, a suggested protocol is attached to this paper.

22 Bookmarks
 · 
694 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Peripheral smear review is a critical, but labor intensive adjunct for evaluation of lymphocytosis. Standard practice based on consensus guidelines is to review cases with absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) >5×109/L. We hypothesize that identifying cases for review by applying appropriately adjusted ALC and age discriminators will decrease laboratory workload without compromising patient care. Methods: 1170 complete blood counts with ALCs >5×109/L analyzed in the core laboratory during a 2-year period were included. Patients were categorized into diagnostic groups based on follow-up criteria. A total of 402 patients with new onset lymphocytosis who met criteria for reactive lymphocytosis (82%) or lymphoproliferative disorder (18%) were used to establish optimal ALC and age thresholds from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: ALC as a discriminator for neoplastic lymphocytosis had an ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.732. Selecting cases with ALC >10×109/L enriched the proportion of neoplastic cases in the review pool (90% specificity); however, many cases with ALC below this threshold were also neoplastic (52% sensitivity). For cases with ALC between 5 and 10×109/L, age as a discriminator had an ROC AUC of 0.886. Selecting patients >50 years old in this group for review captured the neoplastic cases while excluding the reactive cases (93% sensitivity, 62% specificity). When applied to a validation cohort, the predictive performance of the thresholds was maintained while reducing smears reviewed by 50%. Conclusions: We show that modifying the standard 5×109/L ALC smear review threshold through retrospective analysis of institutional data can reduce laboratory workload without compromising quality.
    Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine : CCLM / FESCC. 06/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An increased white blood cell count, or leukocytosis, is a common laboratory finding. Appropriate specimen evaluation depends on which lineages are increased and the morphologic findings on peripheral blood smear review to guide further testing. The presence of blasts is concerning for acute leukemia and may require bone marrow biopsy. Lymphocytosis may be morphologically divided into polymorphic and monomorphic populations. Polymorphic lymphocytosis is most consistent with a reactive process, while monomorphic populations are concerning for lymphoproliferative neoplasm. The differential can be further narrowed based on morphologic findings. Myeloid leukocytosis can occur in a number of reactive conditions as well as myeloid malignancies. The types of cells present and morphology can help to guide additional workup. This study provides guidance for the appropriate evaluation and further workup of leukocytosis.
    International journal of laboratory hematology 06/2014; 36(3). · 1.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Modern automated haematology instruments are capable of performing leukocyte differentials faster, cheaper and with a higher precision than the traditional 100-cell manual differential count. Thus, in human laboratories, criteria are defined for performing a manual review of the blood smear resulting in a marked reduction of manual differential counts. While common in human laboratories, this approach to reducing the number of manual differentials in veterinary laboratories is still not commonly performed. Thus, our aim was to determine the rate and causes of manual leukocyte differentials in a university clinical pathology laboratory using the automated laser-based haematology analyser ADVIA 120. Overall, 14,953 complete blood cell counts from dogs, cats and horses were reviewed. Manual leukocyte differentials were requested if abnormal ADVIA peroxidase and baso cytograms were detected (i.e. suspicion of left shift or atypical lymphocytes/blasts, inappropriate separation of cell populations).
    BMC Veterinary Research 06/2014; 10(1):125. · 1.86 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
52 Downloads
Available from