Comparison of interlaboratory variation in absolute T-cell counts by single-platform and optimized dual-platform methods

Lance E. Hultin, Marianne Chow, Beth D. Jamieson, Maurice R G O'Gorman, Frederick A. Menendez, Luann Borowski, Thomas N. Denny, Joseph Bernard Margolick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. Methods: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT® beads to generate the absolute counts). Results: The median percent coefficients of variation (%CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. Conclusion: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)194-200
Number of pages7
JournalCytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry
Volume78
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2010

Fingerprint

Cell Count
T-Lymphocytes
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U.S.)
Cohort Studies
Flow Cytometry
Blood Cell Count
Los Angeles
Lymphocyte Subsets
Lymphocyte Count
Hematology
CD4 Lymphocyte Count
Allergy and Immunology
Color

Keywords

  • Absolute CD4 counts
  • Dual platform
  • Flow cytometry
  • HIV
  • Interlaboratory variation
  • Single platform

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cell Biology
  • Histology
  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of interlaboratory variation in absolute T-cell counts by single-platform and optimized dual-platform methods. / Hultin, Lance E.; Chow, Marianne; Jamieson, Beth D.; O'Gorman, Maurice R G; Menendez, Frederick A.; Borowski, Luann; Denny, Thomas N.; Margolick, Joseph Bernard.

In: Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry, Vol. 78, No. 3, 05.2010, p. 194-200.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hultin, Lance E. ; Chow, Marianne ; Jamieson, Beth D. ; O'Gorman, Maurice R G ; Menendez, Frederick A. ; Borowski, Luann ; Denny, Thomas N. ; Margolick, Joseph Bernard. / Comparison of interlaboratory variation in absolute T-cell counts by single-platform and optimized dual-platform methods. In: Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry. 2010 ; Vol. 78, No. 3. pp. 194-200.
@article{c2e57ab59f7f474eaf84a91cee9f93d3,
title = "Comparison of interlaboratory variation in absolute T-cell counts by single-platform and optimized dual-platform methods",
abstract = "Background: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. Methods: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT{\circledR} beads to generate the absolute counts). Results: The median percent coefficients of variation ({\%}CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. Conclusion: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports.",
keywords = "Absolute CD4 counts, Dual platform, Flow cytometry, HIV, Interlaboratory variation, Single platform",
author = "Hultin, {Lance E.} and Marianne Chow and Jamieson, {Beth D.} and O'Gorman, {Maurice R G} and Menendez, {Frederick A.} and Luann Borowski and Denny, {Thomas N.} and Margolick, {Joseph Bernard}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1002/cyto.b.20500",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "78",
pages = "194--200",
journal = "Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry",
issn = "1552-4949",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of interlaboratory variation in absolute T-cell counts by single-platform and optimized dual-platform methods

AU - Hultin, Lance E.

AU - Chow, Marianne

AU - Jamieson, Beth D.

AU - O'Gorman, Maurice R G

AU - Menendez, Frederick A.

AU - Borowski, Luann

AU - Denny, Thomas N.

AU - Margolick, Joseph Bernard

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Background: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. Methods: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT® beads to generate the absolute counts). Results: The median percent coefficients of variation (%CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. Conclusion: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports.

AB - Background: Previous studies have reported that the adoption of a single-platform flow cytometry cell counting method resulted in lower interlaboratory variation in absolute T cell counts as compared to predicate dual-platform flow cytometry methods which incorporate independent automated lymphocyte counts (Schnizlein-Bick et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:336-343; Reimann et al., Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:344-351). In the present study, we asked whether use of a single-platform method could reduce variation in absolute cell counts across the laboratories in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) (n = 4), as suggested by the studies cited. Methods: Identical study samples were shipped overnight to the MACS laboratories either by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Division of AIDS Immunology Quality Assessment (NIAID- IQA) proficiency-testing program (n = 14), or by the Los Angeles site of the MACS (n = 10). For each sample, two tubes of blood were received; one was used for an automated complete blood count and differential, and the other for flow cytometry. The latter was performed using both our current dual-platform method (three-color CD45 gating and automated hematology) and the single-platform method (with TruCOUNT® beads to generate the absolute counts). Results: The median percent coefficients of variation (%CVs) for the dual-platform and single-platform methods were 6.6 and 9.9, respectively, for CD4 T cell counts, and 5.9 and 8.5, respectively, for CD8 T cell counts (n = 24). These differences were not statistically significant. The differences in absolute T-cell counts between the MACS sites and the median of all laboratories participating in the NIAID-IQA were smaller for the dual-platform than for single-platform absolute count method. Conclusion: In contrast to previous reports, we did not observe lower interlaboratory variation across the MACS sites for single-platform absolute lymphocyte subset counting relative to dual-platform methods. This result may be at least partly explained by the lower interlaboratory variation with the optimized dual-platform method in this study relative to the previous reports.

KW - Absolute CD4 counts

KW - Dual platform

KW - Flow cytometry

KW - HIV

KW - Interlaboratory variation

KW - Single platform

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952624460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952624460&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/cyto.b.20500

DO - 10.1002/cyto.b.20500

M3 - Article

C2 - 19813263

AN - SCOPUS:77952624460

VL - 78

SP - 194

EP - 200

JO - Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry

JF - Cytometry Part B - Clinical Cytometry

SN - 1552-4949

IS - 3

ER -