A rapid manual technique does not have adequate sensitivity and specificity to reliably discriminate between neutropenic and non-neutropenic dogs prior to administration of chemotherapy.
{"title":"A rapid manual technique does not have adequate sensitivity and specificity to reliably discriminate between neutropenic and non-neutropenic dogs prior to administration of chemotherapy.","authors":"M Walton-Clark, T Henriques, M Best","doi":"10.1111/jsap.13773","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop and determine the accuracy of a rapid manual technique for the detection of pre-treatment neutropenia (<1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L) in dogs receiving chemotherapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty canine blood smears with known neutrophil counts between 1.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L and 3.00 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L were reviewed by two internal medicine clinicians and linear regressions performed to determine a cut-off value for a manual neutrophil count equating to >1.50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. Consecutive blood samples from dogs undergoing chemotherapy were processed through an automated haematology analyser (VetScan HM5, Abaxis), and prospective blinded manual review by the same two observers assessed whether the manual technique could accurately detect dogs with neutropenia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Linear regression analysis found a cut-off of >26 neutrophils per 10 low power fields at the monolayer to be equivalent to a neutrophil count of >1.5 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L. A total of 183 blood samples from 43 dogs were reviewed. Automated techniques detected neutropenia in 16 of 183 (9%) blood samples. Using the manual cut-off technique, 13 of 16 (81%) and 11 of 16 (69%) of neutropenic samples were correctly identified by observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. Twenty-three of 167 non-neutropenic dogs (14%) were incorrectly classified as neutropenic by observer 1, and 27 (16%) by observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was 92%. Sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval 54% to 96%) for observer 1 and 69% (95% confidence interval 41% to 89%) for observer 2. Specificity was 86% (95% confidence interval 80% to 91%) for observer 1 and 84% (95% confidence interval 77% to 89%) for observer 2.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Manual estimation resulted in up to five of 16 (31%) neutropenic samples being incorrectly classified. A full automated differential cell count remains preferable.</p>","PeriodicalId":17062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Small Animal Practice","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.13773","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To develop and determine the accuracy of a rapid manual technique for the detection of pre-treatment neutropenia (<1.50 × 109/L) in dogs receiving chemotherapy.
Materials and methods: Twenty canine blood smears with known neutrophil counts between 1.00 × 109/L and 3.00 × 109/L were reviewed by two internal medicine clinicians and linear regressions performed to determine a cut-off value for a manual neutrophil count equating to >1.50 × 109/L. Consecutive blood samples from dogs undergoing chemotherapy were processed through an automated haematology analyser (VetScan HM5, Abaxis), and prospective blinded manual review by the same two observers assessed whether the manual technique could accurately detect dogs with neutropenia.
Results: Linear regression analysis found a cut-off of >26 neutrophils per 10 low power fields at the monolayer to be equivalent to a neutrophil count of >1.5 × 109/L. A total of 183 blood samples from 43 dogs were reviewed. Automated techniques detected neutropenia in 16 of 183 (9%) blood samples. Using the manual cut-off technique, 13 of 16 (81%) and 11 of 16 (69%) of neutropenic samples were correctly identified by observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. Twenty-three of 167 non-neutropenic dogs (14%) were incorrectly classified as neutropenic by observer 1, and 27 (16%) by observer 2. Inter-observer agreement was 92%. Sensitivity was 81% (95% confidence interval 54% to 96%) for observer 1 and 69% (95% confidence interval 41% to 89%) for observer 2. Specificity was 86% (95% confidence interval 80% to 91%) for observer 1 and 84% (95% confidence interval 77% to 89%) for observer 2.
Clinical significance: Manual estimation resulted in up to five of 16 (31%) neutropenic samples being incorrectly classified. A full automated differential cell count remains preferable.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Small Animal Practice (JSAP) is a monthly peer-reviewed publication integrating clinical research papers and case reports from international sources, covering all aspects of medicine and surgery relating to dogs, cats and other small animals. These papers facilitate the dissemination and implementation of new ideas and techniques relating to clinical veterinary practice, with the ultimate aim of promoting best practice. JSAP publishes high quality original articles, as well as other scientific and educational information. New developments are placed in perspective, encompassing new concepts and peer commentary. The target audience is veterinarians primarily engaged in the practise of small animal medicine and surgery.
In addition to original articles, JSAP will publish invited editorials (relating to a manuscript in the same issue or a topic of current interest), review articles, which provide in-depth discussion of important clinical issues, and other scientific and educational information from around the world.
The final decision on publication of a manuscript rests with the Editorial Board and ultimately with the Editor. All papers, regardless of type, represent the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the Editor, the Association or the Publisher.
The Journal of Small Animal Practice is published on behalf of the British Small Animal Veterinary Association and is also the official scientific journal of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association