PMID- 17279505
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20070731
LR  - 20071203
IS  - 1059-910X (Print)
IS  - 1059-910X (Linking)
VI  - 70
IP  - 7
DP  - 2007 Jul
TI  - Spot counting to locate fetal cells in maternal blood and tissue: a comparison of 
      manual and automated microscopy.
PG  - 585-8
AB  - BACKGROUND: Fetal cell detection in maternal tissue requires an accurate, 
      efficient, and reproducible microscopy method. Our objective was to compare 
      manual scoring to a commercially available automated scanning system for the 
      detection of chromosome signals by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). 
      METHODS: X and Y chromosome FISH signals were detected on slides of calibrated 
      mixtures of blood, paraffin-embedded liver sections, and post-termination blood. 
      For manual scoring (400x magnification), the number of cells located and duration 
      of scoring were recorded. For automated scanning using the Metasystems 
      Metafer3/Metafer4 Scanning System (200x magnification), duration of scanning, 
      number of gallery images generated, duration of manual review of gallery images, 
      and number of confirmed fetal cells were recorded. RESULTS: From all slides the 
      number of target fetal cells located by manual and automated microscopy was 
      highly correlated (r = 0.90). However, automated scanning required on average 
      4-fold more time than manual scoring (P < 0.0001), with an average automated 
      scanning time of 9.7 h per slide compared with 2.4 h per slide when scored 
      manually. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the accuracy of automated and manual 
      microscopy is comparable, although manual scoring is more efficient because of 
      the level of magnification necessary for automated scanning of cells, and a large 
      number of gallery images generated by automated scanning that must then be 
      reviewed manually. This suggests that when rapid analysis is required (i.e., 
      clinical situations), manual microscopy is preferable. In contrast, automated 
      scanning may have advantages over manual microscopy when time constraints are 
      less imposed (i.e., research situations).
FAU - Johnson, Kirby L
AU  - Johnson KL
AD  - Division of Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Tufts-New England Medical Center, 
      Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA. kjohnson@tufts-nemc.org
FAU - Stroh, Helene
AU  - Stroh H
FAU - Khosrotehrani, Kiarash
AU  - Khosrotehrani K
FAU - Bianchi, Diana W
AU  - Bianchi DW
LA  - eng
GR  - N01-HD4-3204/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
PL  - United States
TA  - Microsc Res Tech
JT  - Microscopy research and technique
JID - 9203012
SB  - IM
MH  - Automation
MH  - Chimerism
MH  - Female
MH  - Fetus/*cytology
MH  - Humans
MH  - Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/*methods
MH  - Immunohistochemistry
MH  - Liver/*cytology
MH  - Matched-Pair Analysis
MH  - Microscopy, Fluorescence/*methods
MH  - Paraffin Embedding
MH  - Pregnancy/*blood
MH  - Staining and Labeling
EDAT- 2007/02/07 09:00
MHDA- 2007/08/01 09:00
CRDT- 2007/02/07 09:00
PHST- 2007/02/07 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2007/08/01 09:00 [medline]
PHST- 2007/02/07 09:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1002/jemt.20439 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Microsc Res Tech. 2007 Jul;70(7):585-8. doi: 10.1002/jemt.20439.