Professional Documents
Culture Documents
175]
Original Article
Platelet count estimation using the CellaVision DM96 system
Yuon Gao1, Adnan Mansoor1,2 Brenda Wood1, Heather Nelson1, Diane Higa1, Christopher Naugler1,2
Calgary Laboratory Services, 9, 3535 Research Rd NW, Calgary, AB, T2L 2K8, 2Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
1
Canada
E‑mail: *Christopher Naugler ‑ christopher.naugler@cls.ab.ca
*Corresponding author
Copyright: © 2013 Gao Y. This is an open‑access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Introduction: Rapid and accurate determination of platelet count is an important factor
in diagnostic medicine. Traditional microscopic methods are labor intensive with variable
results and are highly dependent on the individual training. Recent developments in
automated peripheral blood differentials using a computerized system have shown many
advantages as a viable alternative. The purpose of this paper was to determine the reliability Access this article online
and accuracy of the CellaVision DM 96 system with regards to platelet counts. Materials Website:
and Methods: One hundred twenty seven peripheral blood smears were analyzed for www.jpathinformatics.org
platelet count by manual microscopy, an automated hematology analyzer (Beckman DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.114207
Counter LH 780 or Unicel DXH 800 analyzers) and with the CellaVision DM96 system. Quick Response Code:
Results were compared using the correlations and Bland‑Altman plots. Results: Platelet
counts from the DM96 system showed an R2 of 0.94 when compared to manual platelet
estimates and an R2 of 0.92 when compared to the automated hematology analyzer
results. Bland‑Altman plots did not show any systematic bias.
Key words: Digital pathology, method comparison, platelet estimation
Although manual platelet estimates are necessary in 2. Hagner R. The manual differential enters the digital age. MLO Med Lab Obs
2012;44:20‑1.
some circumstances, the coefficient of variation, in our
3. Yamamoto T, Tabe Y, Ishii K, Itoh S, Maeno I, Matsumoto K, et al. Performance
experience, can vary from 50% in platelet counts of 50‑15% evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system in WBC differentials. Rinsho
with normal platelet counts. Some of this variation can Byori 2010;58:884‑90.
likely be attributed to observer variability in the selection 4. Kratz A, Bengtsson HI, Casey JE, Keefe JM, Beatrice GH, Grzybek DY,
of fields for counting platelets in addition to technical et al. Performance evaluation of the CellaVision DM96 system: WBC
variation in blood smear preparation. The CellaVision differentials by automated digital image analysis supported by an artificial
neural network. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;124:770‑81.
DM96 system offers several potential advantages in this
5. Billard M, Lainey E, Armoogum P, Alberti C, Fenneteau O, Da Costa L.
regard. First, because it is fully automated, it eliminates Evaluation of the CellaVision DM automated microscope in pediatrics. Int J
the need for technologists to perform time‑consuming Lab Hematol 2010;32:530‑8.
manual platelet estimates. Second, consistency in 6. Briggs C, Longair I, Slavik M, Thwaite K, Mills R, Thavaraja V, et al. Can
scanning the defined area of the slide and provision of a automated blood film analysis replace the manual differential? An evaluation
grid could be expected to enhance the reproducibility of of the CellaVision DM96 automated image analysis system. Int J Lab
Hematol 2009;31:48‑60.
estimates over successive samples in clinical practice.
7. Surcouf C, Delaune D, Samson T, Foissaud V. Automated cell recognition
In our own institution, we have additionally found that in hematology: CellaVision DM96 TM system. Ann Biol Clin (Paris)
the use of this digitized system has also been beneficial 2009;67:419‑24.
8. Cornet E, Perol JP, Troussard X. Performance evaluation and relevance
in training laboratory technologists and improving their
of the CellaVision DM96 system in routine analysis and in patients with
competency and proficiency in performing platelet estimates. malignant hematological diseases. Int J Lab Hematol 2008;30:536‑42.
9. Malok M, Titchener EH, Bridgers C, Lee BY, Bamberg R. Comparison of two
REFERENCES platelet count estimation methodologies for peripheral blood smears. Clin
Lab Sci 2007;20:154‑60.
1. Pinkowski R. Difference between impedance and optical platelet counts in 10. Cellavision. Cellavision DM96 Product information [Brochure]. Retrieved
patients with microcytosis of red blood cells. Lab Hematol 1999;5:22‑7. from: http://www.cellavision.com.(n.d.) [Last accessed on 2013 May 1].