Lumley M A, McDonald D F, Czarnecka H M, Billingham L J, Milligan D W
Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, UK.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996 Oct;18(4):791-6.
In order to examine the feasibility of an external quality assurance (QA) scheme for CD34+ cell enumeration and to identify causes of the differences between laboratories for CD34 counts, we carried out a pilot QA exercise in two parts. There were eight participating laboratories in the initial study and each performed CD34 counts using their in-house method. A series of 12 samples of cryopreserved peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) were analysed by each of the eight laboratories. A very wide range of values for all the samples was found for the different in-house methods. For the second part of the study, 12 laboratories analysed a different set of 12 PBPC samples and each used the same anti-CD34 antibody (HPCA-2 PE), anti-CD45 antibodies to identify leucocytes, and counted a minimum of 50,000 events. These measures have reduced the interlaboratory variation in results but this variation is still too high to allow us to realistically compare values between centres. Overall, most centres performed comparably, but there was one centre in part one of the study which gave results that were significantly different from the other centres.
为了检验CD34+细胞计数外部质量保证(QA)方案的可行性,并确定各实验室间CD34计数差异的原因,我们分两部分开展了一项试点质量保证工作。初始研究中有8个参与实验室,每个实验室都使用其内部方法进行CD34计数。8个实验室分别对一系列12份冷冻保存的外周血祖细胞(PBPC)样本进行了分析。对于不同的内部方法,所有样本的值范围非常广泛。在研究的第二部分,12个实验室分析了另一组12份PBPC样本,每个实验室都使用相同的抗CD34抗体(HPCA-2 PE)、抗CD45抗体来识别白细胞,并至少计数50000个事件。这些措施减少了实验室间结果的差异,但这种差异仍然过高,以至于我们无法实际比较各中心之间的值。总体而言,大多数中心的表现相当,但在研究的第一部分中有一个中心给出的结果与其他中心有显著差异。