Performance of the new MC-80 automated digital cell morphology analyser in detection of normal and abnormal blood cells: Comparison with the CellaVision DM9600.

INTRODUCTION: Mindray MC-80 is an automated system for digital imaging of white blood cells (WBCs) and their pre-classification. The objective of this work is to analyse its performance comparing it with the CellaVision® DM9600. METHODS: A total of 445 samples were used, 194 normal and 251 abnormal: acute leukaemia (100), myelodysplastic syndromes/myeloproliferative neoplasms (33), lymphoid neoplasms (50), plasma cell neoplasms (14), infections (49) and thrombocytopenia (5). WBC pre-classification values with the MC-80 and DM9600 were compared with (1) the microscope, (2) Mindray BC-6800Plus differentials in only normal samples, and (3) confirmed or reclassified images (post-classification). Pearson's correlation, Lin's concordance, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman plots were used. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values for abnormal cells using the MC-80 were calculated. RESULTS: The PPV and NPV were above 98% and 99%, for normal samples. For immature granulocytes (IG), NPV and PPV were 100% and 74.2%. When comparing the WBC differentials using the MC-80, the microscope and the BC-6800Plus, no differences were found except for basophils and IG. Our results showed good agreement between the pre- and post-classification of normal WBC, including IG, quantified by high correlation and concordance values (0.91-1). Sensitivity and specificity for blasts were 0.984 and 0.640. The MC-80 detected abnormal lymphocytes in 30% of the smears from patients with lymphoid neoplasm. Plasma cell identification was better using the DM9600. The sensitivity and specificity for erythroblast detection were 1 and 0.890. CONCLUSION: We found that the MC-80 shows high performance for WBC differentials for both normal samples and patients with haematological diseases.

A plasmatic score using a miRNA signature and CXCL-10 for accurate prediction and diagnosis of liver allograft rejection.

Introduction: The use of noninvasive biomarkers may avoid the need for liver biopsy (LB) and could guide immunosuppression adjustment in liver transplantation (LT). The aims of this study were: to confirm the predictive and diagnostic capacity of plasmatic expression of miR-155-5p, miR-181a-5p, miR-122-5p and CXCL-10 for assessing T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR) risk; to develop a score based on a panel of noninvasive biomarkers to predict graft rejection risk and to validate this score in a separate cohort. Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted with a cohort of 79 patients followed during the first year after LT. Plasma samples were collected at predetermined time points for the analysis of miRNAs and the CXCL-10. Patients with LFTs abnormalities were submitted to a LB to rule out rejection, assessing previous and concurrent expression of the biomarkers to evaluate their predictive and diagnostic ability. Information from 86 patients included in a previous study was collected and used as a validation cohort. Results: Twenty-four rejection episodes were diagnosed in 22 patients. Plasmatic CXCL-10 concentration and the expression of the three miRNAs were significantly elevated prior to and at the moment of the diagnosis of rejection. We developed a logistic model for rejection prediction and diagnosis, which included CXCL-10, miR-155-5p and miR-181a-5p. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) for rejection prediction was 0.975 (79.6% sensitivity, 99.1% specificity, 90,7% PPV; 97.7% NPV; 97.1% correctly classified) and 0.99 for diagnosis (87.5% sensitivity, 99.5% specificity, 91.3% PPV; 99.3% NPV; 98.9% correctly classified). In the validation cohort (n=86; 14 rejections), the same cut-off points were used obtaining AUROCs for rejection prediction and diagnosis of 0.89 and 0.92 respectively. In patients with graft dysfunction in both cohorts the score could discriminate those with rejection regarding other causes with an AUROC of 0.98 (97.3% sensitivity, 94.1%specificity). Conclusion: These results suggest that the clinical implementation of the monitoring of this noninvasive plasmatic score may allow the prediction and diagnosis of rejection and identify patients with graft dysfunction due to rejection, helping with a more efficient guide for immunosuppressive therapy adjustment. This finding warrants the development of prospective biomarker-guided clinical trials.