BACKGROUND: The Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60, Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We explored the performance of DI-60 in comparison with Sysmex XN analyzer (XN, Sysmex) and manual count. METHODS: In a total of 276 samples (176 abnormal and 100 normal samples), white blood cell (WBC) differentials, red blood cell (RBC) classification and platelet (PLT) estimation by DI-60 were compared with the results by XN and/or manual count. RBC morphology between pre-classification and verification was compared according to the ICSH grading criteria. The manual count was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (H20-A2). RESULTS: The overall concordance between DI-60 and manual count for WBCs was 86.0%. The agreement between DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (weighted κ=0.963) for WBC five-part differentials. The correlation with manual count was very strong for neutrophils (r=0.955), lymphocytes (r=0.871), immature granulocytes (r=0.820), and blasts (r=0.879). RBC grading showed notable differences between DI-60 and manual counting on the basis of the ICSH grading criteria. Platelet count by DI-60 highly correlated with that by XN (r=0.945). However, DI-60 underestimated platelet counts in samples with marked thrombocytosis. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of DI-60 for WBC differential, RBC classification, and platelet estimation seems to be acceptable even in abnormal samples with improvement after verification. DI-60 would help optimize the workflow in hematology laboratory with reduced manual workload.
BACKGROUND: The Sysmex DI-60 system (DI-60, Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) is a new automated digital cell imaging analyzer. We explored the performance of DI-60 in comparison with Sysmex XN analyzer (XN, Sysmex) and manual count. METHODS: In a total of 276 samples (176 abnormal and 100 normal samples), white blood cell (WBC) differentials, red blood cell (RBC) classification and platelet (PLT) estimation by DI-60 were compared with the results by XN and/or manual count. RBC morphology between pre-classification and verification was compared according to the ICSH grading criteria. The manual count was performed according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines (H20-A2). RESULTS: The overall concordance between DI-60 and manual count for WBCs was 86.0%. The agreement between DI-60 pre-classification and verification was excellent (weighted κ=0.963) for WBC five-part differentials. The correlation with manual count was very strong for neutrophils (r=0.955), lymphocytes (r=0.871), immature granulocytes (r=0.820), and blasts (r=0.879). RBC grading showed notable differences between DI-60 and manual counting on the basis of the ICSH grading criteria. Platelet count by DI-60 highly correlated with that by XN (r=0.945). However, DI-60 underestimated platelet counts in samples with marked thrombocytosis. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of DI-60 for WBC differential, RBC classification, and platelet estimation seems to be acceptable even in abnormal samples with improvement after verification. DI-60 would help optimize the workflow in hematology laboratory with reduced manual workload.