Background: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of hematolymphoid neoplasms (FCIHLN) is essential for diagnosis, classification, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. FCI-HLN is typically performed using in-house protocols, raising the need for standardization. Therefore, we surveyed the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea to obtain fundamental data for quality improvement and standardization. Methods: Eight university hospitals actively conducting FCI-HLN participated in our survey.We analyzed responses to a questionnaire that included inquiries regarding test items, reagent antibodies (RAs), fluorophores, sample amounts (SAs), reagent antibody amounts (RAAs), acquisition cell number (ACN), isotype control (IC) usage, positiveegative criteria, and reporting. Results: Most hospitals used acute HLN, chronic HLN, plasma cell neoplasm (PCN), and MRD panels. The numbers of RAs were heterogeneous, with a maximum of 32, 26, 12, 14, and 10 antibodies used for acute HLN, chronic HLN, PCN, ALL-MRD, and multiple myeloma-MRD, respectively. The number of fluorophores ranged from 4 to 10. RAs, SAs, RAAs, and ACN were diverse. Most hospitals used a positive criterion of 20%, whereas one used 10% for acute and chronic HLN panels. Five hospitals used ICs for the negative criterion. Positiveegative assignments, percentages, and general opinions were commonly reported. In MRD reporting, the limit of detection and lower limit of quantification were included. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive study on the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea, confirming the high heterogeneity and complexity of FCI-HLN practices. Standardization of FCI-HLN is urgently needed. The findings provide a reference for establishing standard FCI-HLN guidelines.

Transfusion support for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an essential part of supportive care, and compatible blood should be transfused into recipients. As leukocyte antigen (HLA) matching is considered first and as the blood group does not impede HSCT, major, minor, bidirectional, and RhD incompatibilities occur that might hinder transfusion and cause adverse events. Leukocyte reduction in blood products is frequently used, and irradiation should be performed for blood products, except for plasma. To mitigate incompatibility and adverse events, local transfusion guidelines, hospital transfusion committees, and patient management should be considered.

We would like to introduce domestic subscribers of the Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion to the important aspects to be considered while selecting a reference allele and reporting a new allele candidate. ABO*A1.02 has only a single nucleotide substitution of c.467C＞T in ABO*A1.01, and when ABO*A1.01 is used as the reference allele, the ABO*AW.10 allele should be marked as having both c.467C＞T and c.784G＞A variants. Unfortunately, it has not been modified as such in the ISBT database. For this reason, in the journal Transfusion (2020), the official journal of the Association for the Advancement of Blood Biotherapies, there was a report of a new allele with c.467C＞T and c.784G＞A variants. Cases of ABO*AW.10 allele with a weak A phenotype are not uncommon in Koreans, and it is necessary to accurately mark the reference allele. The blood type A reference allele of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) database currently used for ABO alleles reporting is based on ABO*A1.01. Therefore, it should be considered that the ABO*AW.10 allele has both the c.467C＞T and c.784G＞A variants together.

The Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion (KJBT) stands as a prominent publication in the field of transfusion medicine, playing a pivotal role in advancing both national blood management projects and clinical explorations.In three years (2021∼2023) KJBT has disseminated 60 articles. During this period, five new article types (opinion, illustrated, mini-review, protocol, and annual report) have been introduced, and a new version of the online submission system has been implemented. The articles in KJBT have also been used as a valuable reference source for the first textbook on transfusion medicine published by the Korean Society of Blood Transfusion in 2023. With the ongoing efforts of the editorial team to provide better services to authors and readers, coupled with the sustained interest and passion of all the members, we hope that KJBT will continue to contribute to the advancement of domestic transfusion medicine research and the national blood program.

The Landsteiner–Wiener (LW) antigen is a type of red blood cell antigen. Anti-LW appears in various situations, including alloantibodies, autoantibodies, and even transiently occurring antibodies. Anti-LW has similar characteristics to anti-D, so it can interfere with interpreting pre-transfusion tests and finding compatible blood. This paper introduces three cases in whom anti-LW was detected through antibody identification tests. All three cases were examined using the column agglutination technique with ID-DiaPanel (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) on a LISS/Coombs card, ID-DiaPanel p (Bio-Rad) on a NaCl/Enzyme card, and ID-DiaPanel (Bio-Rad) on a LISS/Coombs card using red blood cells treated with dithiothreitol. The auto-control test, direct antiglobulin test, and umbilical cord blood test were also performed. In all three cases, the reaction with D-positive panel cells was stronger than that with the D-negative panel cells, and two of them showed a pan-agglutinated reaction in ID-DiaPanel p (Bio-Rad) with NaCl/Enzyme card. They were reported as anti-LW, and as in these cases, anti-LW can occur under a range of conditions and interfere with proper transfusion. Therefore, it is important to identify anti-LW accurately, and if anti-LW is present, the transfusion of D-negative ABO matched blood should be recommended because of the low expression of the LW-antigen. On the other hand, D-positive blood is not a contraindication when an urgent transfusion is needed.

We used serial rectal swabs to investigate the amount and duration of virus secretion through the gastrointestinal tract and assessed the association between fecal shedding and gastrointestinal symptoms and to clarify the clinical usefulness testing rectal swabs.We enrolled ten adult patients hospitalized with symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Respiratory and stool specimens were collected by physicians. The presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed using real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. All ten patients had respiratory symptoms, six had diarrhea, and seven were positive for SARS-CoV-2 on rectal swabs. The viral loads in the respiratory specimens was higher than those in the rectal specimens, and no rectal specimens were positive after the respiratory specimens became negative. There was no association between gastrointestinal symptoms, pneumonia, severity, and rectal viral load. Rectal swabs may play a role in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with suspected COVID-19, regardless of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China; it has since caused a pandemic, with more than 10,000 confirmed cases (> 800,000 tests) in Korea as of May 2020. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is currently the most commonly used method for the diagnosis of COVID-19 worldwide. The Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine and Korea Centers for Disease Prevention and Control regularly update the guidelines for COVID-19 diagnosis. Emergency use authorization for some laboratory diagnostic kits has been granted, enabling the timely diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, and the isolation of infected patients. Due to the collective efforts of the government, medical professionals, local authorities, and the public, Korea’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak has been accepted widely as a model. Here, we summarize the currently available laboratory tests for COVID-19 diagnosis. Although RT-PCR tests are used widely to confirm COVID-19, antibody tests could provide information about immune responses to the virus.

ELISAs and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used for diagnosing dengue virus (DENV) infection. Using 138 single blood samples, we compared the ability to detect non-structural (NS)-1 antigen and anti-DENV IgM/IgG antibodies among (1) DENV Detect NS1 ELISA, DENV Detect IgM capture ELISA and DENV Detect IgG ELISA (InBios International, Inc.); (2) Anti-Dengue virus IgM Human ELISA and Anti-Dengue virus IgG Human ELISA (Abcam); (3) Dengue virus NS1 ELISA, Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgM) and Anti-Dengue virus ELISA (IgG) (Euroimmun); (4) Asan Easy Test Dengue NS1 Ag 100 and Asan Easy Test Dengue IgG/IgM (Asan Pharm); (5) SD BIOLINE Dengue Duo (Standard Diagnostics); and (6) Ichroma Dengue NS1 and Ichroma Dengue IgG/IgM (Boditech Med). For NS1 antigen detection, InBios and Euroimmun showed higher sensitivities (100%) than the RDTs (42.9–64.3%). All tests demonstrated variable sensitivities for IgM (38.1–90.5%) and IgG (65.7–100.0%). InBios and Boditech Med demonstrated higher sensitivity (95.6% and 88.2%, respectively) than the other tests for combined NS1 antigen and IgM antibody. Five NS1 antigen tests had good agreement (92.8–98.6%) without showing positivity for chikungunya. However, all IgG tests demonstrated potential false-positivity with variable ranges. Clinical laboratories should note performance variations across tests and potential cross-reactivity.
Antibodies ; Chungcheongnam-do ; Dengue Virus ; Dengue ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Humans ; Immunoglobulin G ; Immunoglobulin M

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte transfusion (GTx) is performed as a supportive therapy in severe neutropenic patients caused by various conditions. The study aimed to analyze the hematologic parameters of donors, patients, and granulocyte concentrates to predict successful GTx. METHODS: This study was performed in 281 donors, with their granulocyte concentrates being collected through apheresis, and in 54 severe neutropenic patients who had various hematologic diseases. Complete blood cell counts of donors pre- and post-apheresis, granulocyte concentrates, and patients pre- and post-GTx were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to survival at discharge (Group S, survival; Group D, dead) to compare various factors including age, infection status, pre- and post-GTx total white blood cell counts (TWBCC) and absolute neutrophil counts (ANC), total number of GTx, infused TWBCC and ANC per weight, and use of G-CSF during therapy. RESULTS: Overall data of patients showed that both TWBCC and ANC were significantly increased after GTx (median values at pre-GTx, TWBCC=0.40×109/L, ANC=0.14×109/L; post-GTx, TWBCC=0.57×109/L, ANC=0.29×109/L, both P<0.0001). After GTx, Group S (N=25) showed significantly higher TWBCC and ANC than Group D (N=29) (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively). Using different cutoff levels, post-GTx TWBCC greater than 0.5×109/L showed statistically significant difference between the two groups (P<0.01). None of the other factors showed statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The TWBCC and ANC after GTx were significant factors to predict patients' outcome. Therefore, follow-up of those two parameters may be helpful to select or consider other therapeutic modalities including additional GTx.
Blood Cell Count ; Blood Component Removal ; Follow-Up Studies ; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor ; Granulocytes ; Hematologic Diseases ; Humans ; Leukocyte Count ; Neutropenia ; Neutrophils ; Tissue Donors

BACKGROUND: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is one of the tumor markers available for evaluating disease progression status after initial therapy and monitoring subsequent treatment modalities in colorectal, gastrointestinal, lung, and breast carcinoma. We evaluated the correlations and differences between widely used, automated CEA immunoassays at four different medical laboratories. METHODS: In total, 393 serum samples with CEA ranging from 3.0 to 1,000 ng/mL were analyzed on ADVIA Centaur XP (Siemens Diagnostics, Tarrytown, NY, USA), ARCHITECT i2000sr (Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, IL, USA), Elecsys E170 (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN, USA), and Unicel DxI800 (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA), and the results were compared. Deming regression, Passing-Bablok regression, and Bland-Altman analyses were performed to evaluate the data correlation and % differences among these assays. RESULTS: Deming regression analysis of data from Elecsys E170 and UniCel DxI800 showed good correlation (y=3.1615+0.8970x). According to Bland-Altman plot, no statistically significant bias (−1.78 ng/mL [95% confidence interval: −4.02 to 0.46]) was observed between Elecsys E170 and UniCel DxI800. However, the relative differences of CEA concentrations between assays exceeded the acceptable limit of 30%. Regarding the agreement of positivity with cut-off value 5.0 ng/mL, ARCHITECT i2000sr and Elecsys E170 showed the highest agreement (95.2%), whereas ADVIA Centaur XP and ARCHITECT i2000sr showed the lowest agreement (70.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Agreements between automated CEA immunoassays are variable, and individual CEA concentrations may differ significantly between assays. Standardization of serum CEA concentrations and further harmonization are needed.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Biomarkers, Tumor ; Breast Neoplasms ; Carcinoembryonic Antigen* ; Disease Progression ; Immunoassay* ; Lung ; Statistics as Topic