{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03902065799540933, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016832440703902066, 'mean_word_length': 5.57286432160804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
CD34+ cell enumeration by flow cytometry: a comparison of systems and methodologies.

CONTEXT
An increasing number of medical centers can collect bone marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord stem cells. Pathology laboratories should accommodate this trend, but investment in additional equipment may be impractical.


OBJECTIVES
To compare CD34(+) cell counting results by using 2 widely available flow cytometry systems, with and without the use of a separate hematology analyzer (ie, single-platform versus dual-platform methodologies).


DESIGN
Whole blood and peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) samples were analyzed from 13 healthy allogeneic PBSC donors and 46 autologous PBSC donors with various malignancies. The Cytomics FC500 (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) was compared with the FACSCalibur (BD Biosciences, San Jose, California). Dual-platform CD34(+) cell counting incorporated data from a KX-21 hematology analyzer (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan).


RESULTS
Subtle differences in CD34(+) cell counting between 2 systems and 2 methods did not achieve statistical significance.


CONCLUSION
Different systems and methods for CD34(+) cell enumeration, properly validated, can support care for patients undergoing transplants and provide meaningful data for multicenter studies or meta-analyses.