Establishment of harmonization in immunophenotyping: A comparative study of a standardized one-tube lymphocyte-screening panel

Authors

  • F. W. M. B. Preijers,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Laboratory of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    • Correspondence to: Frank W.M.B. Preijers, PhD, Dept. Laboratory Medicine, Laboratory for Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 8, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: Frank.Preijers@radboudumc.nl

    Search for more papers by this author
  • E. Huys,

    1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Laboratory of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • C. Favre,

    1. Research and Development, Beckman Coulter, Marseille, France
    Search for more papers by this author
  • B. Moshaver

    1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Laboratory of Hematology, Radboud University Medical Center, GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Background

Multiparameter flow cytometry has been increasingly used in the identification and characterization of leukemia and lymphoma. However, due to technical complexity, this method still presents some level of variation between laboratories. In an attempt to yield more reproducible results, restrictive, highly standardized procedures have been proposed. The objective of this work was to compare this standardized protocol to a more open and flexible procedure.

Methods

The levels of expression of markers from the Euroflow lymphoid screening tube (LST) panel were evaluated on a population of both healthy and diseased patients using the recommended monoclonal antibody (MoAb) combinations or an alternative combination of either different MoAb clones or different dyes. Results were expressed as the percentages of positive target cells for each marker.

Results

Our study shows excellent correlation between the two methods demonstrating that comparable results can be achieved through harmonization of the procedures rather than through the constraints of standardization.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that the harmonization approach is feasible. This frees scientists from the restrictions imposed by a standardization approach. © 2014 International Clinical Cytometry Society

Ancillary