Abstract
Objectives
Urinary test strip and sediment analysis integrated with intelligent verification criteria can help to select samples that need manual review. This study aimed to evaluate the improvement in the diagnostic performance of combined urinary test strip and urinary sediment analysis using intelligent verification criteria on the latest generation automated test strip and urinary fluoresce flow cytometry (UFFC) analysers.
Methods
Urine test strip and sediment analysis were performed using the Sysmex UC-3500 and UF-5000 (Kobe, Japan) on 828 urinary samples at the clinical laboratory of the Ghent University Hospital. The results were compared to manual microscopy using phase-contrast microscopy as a reference. After the application of the intelligent verification criteria, we determined whether the diagnostic performance of urine sediment analysis could be improved.
Results
Application of intelligent verification criteria resulted in an increase in specificity from 88.5 to 96.8% and from 88.2 to 94.9% for red blood cells and white blood cells, respectively. Implementing review rules for renal tubular epithelial cells and pathological casts increased the specificity from 66.7 to 74.2% and from 96.2 to 100.0%, respectively; and improved the diagnostic performance of urinary crystals and atypical cells.
Conclusions
The implementation of review rules improved the diagnostic performance of UFFC, thereby increasing the reliability and quality of urine sediment results.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Not applicable.
-
Ethical approval: The local Insitutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.
References
1. Kouri, TT, Kahkonen, K, Malminiemi, K, Vuento, R, Rowan, RM. Evaluation of Sysmex UF-100 urine flow cytometer vs chamber counting of supravitally stained specimens and conventional bacterial cultures. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/112.1.25.Search in Google Scholar
2. Delanghe, J, Kouri, T, Hube, A, Hannemann-Pohl, K, Guder, W, Lun, A, et al.. The role of automated urine particle flow cytometry in clinical practice. Clin Chim Acta 2000;301:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-8981(00)00342-9.Search in Google Scholar
3. Previtali, G, Ravasio, R, Seghezzi, M, Buoro, S, Alessio, MG. Performance evaluation of the new fully automated urine particle analyser UF-5000 compared to the reference method of the Fuchs-Rosenthal Chamer. Clin Chim Acta 2017;473:133–8.10.1016/j.cca.2017.07.028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Zaman, Z. Automated urine screening devices make urine sediment microscopy in diagnostic laboratories economically viable. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015:s1509–11.10.1515/cclm-2015-0476Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Wah, DT, Wises, PK, Butch, A. Analytic performance of the iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyser and comparison with manual counts using Fuchs-Rosenthal cell chambers. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:290–6. https://doi.org/10.1309/vngu9q5v932d74nu.Search in Google Scholar
6. Linko, S, Kouri, T, Toivonen, E, Ranta, P, Chapoulaud, E, Lalla, M. Analytical performance of the Iris iQ200 automated urine microscopy analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2006;372:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2006.03.015.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Zaman, Z, Fogazzi, GB, Garigali, G, Croci, MD, Bayer, G, Kranicz, T. Urine sediment analysis: analytical and diagnostic performance of sediMAX – a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2010;411:147–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2009.10.018.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Benovska, M, Wiewiorka, O, Pinkavova, J. Evaluation of FUS-2000 urine analyser: analytical properties and particle recognization. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2018;78:143–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2017.1423108.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Kouri, T, Fogazzi, G, Gant, V, Hallander, H, Hofmann, W, Guder, WG. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2000;60:1–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2000.12056993.Search in Google Scholar
10. Oyaert, M, Delanghe, J. Progress in automated urinalysis. Ann Lab Med 2019;39:15–22. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2019.39.1.15.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
11. Oyaert, M, De Buyzere, M, Verstraete, K, Speeckaert, M, Delanghe, J. Iodine containing contrast media and urinary flow cytometry: an unknown interference in automated urine sediment analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:e335–7.10.1515/cclm-2021-0159Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Delanghe, J, Speeckaert, M. Preanalytics in urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2016;49:1346–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.10.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Ercan, M, Akbulut, ED, Abusoglu, S, Yilmaz, FM, Oguz, EF, Topcuoglu, C, et al.. Stability of urine specimens stored with and without preservatives at room temperature and on ice prior to urinalysis. Clin Biochem 2015;48:919–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2015.05.016.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Oyaert, M, Delanghe, J. Semi-quantitative, fully automated urine test strip analysis. J Clin Lab Anal 2019;33:e22870. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22870.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
15. Oyaert, M, Speeckaert, M, Boelens, J, Delanghe, J. Renal tubular epithelial cells add value in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract pathology. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:597–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-1068.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. Ren, C, Wang, X, Yang, C, Li, S, Liu, S, Cao, H, et al.. Investigation of Atyp.C using UF-5000 flow cytometer in patients with a suspected diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma: a single center study. Diagn Pathol 2020;15:77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13000-020-00993-1.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Penders, J, Delanghe, J. Quantitative evaluation of urinalysis test strips. Clin Chem 2002;48:2236–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/48.12.2236.Search in Google Scholar
18. Oyaert, M, Himpe, J, Speeckaert, M, Stove, V, Delanghe, J. Quantitative urine test strip reading for leukocyte esterase and haemoglobin peroxidase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1126–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-1159.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Du, J, Xu, J, Wang, F, Guo, Y, Zhang, F, Wu, W, et al.. Establishment and development of the personalized criteria for microscopic review following multiple automated routine urinalysis systems. Clin Chim Acta 2015;444:221–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.022.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Wang, L, Guo, Y, Han, J, Jin, J, Sheng, C, Yang, J, et al.. Establishement of the intilligent verification criteria for a routine urinalysis analyszer in a multi center study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1923–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0344.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Palmieri, R, Falbo, R, Cappellini, F, Soldi, C, Limonta, G, Brambilla, P, et al.. The development of autoverification rules applied to urinalysis performed on the AutionMAX-SediMAX platform. Clin Chim Acta 2018;485:275–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2018.07.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Khejonnit, V, Pratumvinit, B, Reesukumal, K, Meepanya, S, Pattanavin, P, Wongkrajang, P. Optimal criteria for microscopic review of urinalysis following use of automated urine analyser. Clin Chim Acta 2015;439:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.09.027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Roggeman, S, Zaman, Z. Safely reducing manual urine microscopy analyses by combining urine flow cytometer and strip results. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:872–8. https://doi.org/10.1309/grt7-q6wp-vgwe-0yum.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Ottiger, C, Huber, AR. Quantitative urine particle analysis: integrative approach for the optimal combination of automation with UF-100 and microscopic review with KOVA cell chamber. Clin Chem 2003;49:617–23. https://doi.org/10.1373/49.4.617.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Langlois, M, Delanghe, J, Steyaert, S, Everaert, K, De Buyzere, M. Automated flow cytometry compared with an automated dipstick reader for urinalysis. Clin Chem 1999;45:118–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/45.1.118.Search in Google Scholar
26. CLSI. Urinalysis; Approved Guideline, 3rd ed. CLSI document GP16-A3, Rabinovitch, A. Clinical Laboratory standards Institute; 2009.Search in Google Scholar
27. Lee, F, Su, R, Lendvay, T. Cystinuria crystals: a, image from a 14-year-old firl with cystinuria. Urology 2013;81:e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.014.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Delanghe, J, Speeckaert, M. Preanalytical requirements of urinalysis. Biochem Med 2014;24:89–104. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2014.011.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
29. European Confederation of Laboratory Medicine. European urinalysis guidelines. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2000;231:1–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2000.12056993.Search in Google Scholar
30. Mundt, L, Shanahan, K. Graff’s Textbook of Urinalysis and Body Fluids, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2010.Search in Google Scholar
31. Fogazzi, GB, Garigali, G. The Urinary Sediment by sediMAX conTRUST PRO; a whole new way of examining urinary sediment. Milan: Springer Healthcare Communications; 2020:29 p.Search in Google Scholar
32. Winkel, P, Statland, BE, Jorgenson, J. Urine microscopy: an illdefined method examined by a multifactorial technique. Clin Chem 1974;20:436–9.10.1093/clinchem/20.4.436Search in Google Scholar
33. Mohr, NM, Harland, KK, Crabb, V, Mutnick, R, Baumgartner, D, Spinosi, S, et al.. Urinary squamous epithelial cells do not accurately predict urine culture contamination, but may predict urinalysis performance in predicting bacteriuria. Acad Emerg Med 2016;23:323–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12894.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
34. Maher, P, Jablonowski, K, Richardson, L. Squamous epithelial cell presence reduces accuracy of urinalysis for prediction of positive urine cultures. Am J Emerg Med 2020;38:1384–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2019.11.024.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Anderlini, R, Manieri, G, Lucchi, C, Raisi, O. Automated urinalysis with expert review for incidental identification of atypical urothelial cells: an anticipated bladder carcinoma diagnosis. Clin Chim Acta 2015;451:252–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2015.10.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Tiney, I, Sahin, B, Saracoglu, S, Yanilmaz, O, Aksu, MB, Ayas, R, et al.. Atypical cell parameter in automated urine analysis for the diagnosis of bladder cancer: a retrospective pilot study. Bull Uro Oncol 2020;19:17–1. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.galenos.2019.1442.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0617).
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
