Cis-AB showing discrepant results across different automated and manual methods: a case report and review of the literature

Eunju Shin; Hanah Kim; Mina Hur; Hyunkyung Lee; In-Sook Sohn; Kyoung Un Park; Dong Hee Seo

doi:10.1515/cclm-2023-0085

Article Open Access

Cis-AB showing discrepant results across different automated and manual methods: a case report and review of the literature

Eunju Shin , Hanah Kim , Mina Hur , Hyunkyung Lee , In-Sook Sohn , Kyoung Un Park and Dong Hee Seo

Published/Copyright: February 24, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) Volume 61 Issue 8

Keywords: ABO blood group; automated method; cis-AB; discrepancy; manual method

To the Editor,

ABO grouping is the most important pretransfusion testing that is directly related to the quality performance of immunohematology laboratories and patient safety [1]. Among the ABO subgroups, cis-AB is caused by a gene alteration resulting in a single glycosyltransferase enzyme with dual A and B glycosyltransferase activities; there exist various phenotypes of the cis-AB blood group, and these phenotypes are associated with various cis-AB alleles [2]. Although cis-AB is rare worldwide, it is relatively common in Northeast Asia, especially in Korea, with the reported frequency of 0.0354% (60/169,605) in all blood donors from southwestern Korea [3]. Because ABO subgroups including cis-AB may cause problems with either ABO discrepancy or mistyping, it is important to detect cis-AB accurately [2, 3]. We report a case of cis-AB, A₁B_w, that showed discrepant results in ABO grouping across different automated and manual methods. This case report was exempted from the approval of the Institutional Review Board of Konkuk University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea (IRB 2022-10-030) with waived informed consent.

A 39-year-old pregnant woman was referred to the obstetrics clinic for intrauterine growth retardation. In her medical record, she had no history of transfusion, transplantation, or any other comorbidities that might affect red cell activity in ABO grouping. Before this admission, ABO grouping was performed three times in our hospital immunohematology laboratory, and her blood group was constantly determined to be A⁺, using ORTHO VISION Max analyzer (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA). On admission, however, it was notified that her blood group was determined to be cis-AB in a testing conducted in the other laboratory. In that laboratory, the flag sign “?” was detected by red cell reaction with anti-B in an automated method, using Qwalys-3 analyzer (Diagast, Loos, France) (Figure 1A). However, the result of confirmatory manual method was A⁺ using SIHDIA reagent (Shinyang Chemical, Seoul, Korea). Accordingly, another manual method was additionally performed using Diagast reagent (Diagast, Loos, France); due to the detection of small amount B antigen, the result of red cell reaction with anti-B was “weak+”, and the subtyping showed anti-A₁ “4+” and anti-H “1+” (Figure 1B).

Figure 1:

ABO typing results of the patient. (A) Automated method (Qwalys-3; Diagast, Loos, France), (B) manual method using Diagast reagent (Diagast, Loos, France) for anti-A, anti-B, anti-D, (C) automated method (ORTHO VISION Swift; Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ, USA), (D) manual method using BioClone reagent (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) for anti-A, anti-B, anti-D.

With that information, the ABO grouping was rechecked in our hospital; however, the results of an automated method using ORTHO VISION Swift analyzer (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) and a manual method using BioClone reagent (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics) were all A⁺ (Figure 1C and D). ABO genotyping was further conducted, and her blood genotype was confirmed to be cis-AB01/A102. During the admission, she received no transfusion.

Compared with conventional manual methods, automated methods for ABO grouping have been expected to increase work efficiency and reduce errors [4, 5]. Automated methods may show flag signs when there are mixed fields, specimen turbidity, mismatch results, and/or weak reactions, and these flag signs may trigger manual methods to confirm or recheck ABO grouping [6], [7], [8], [9]. Although automated methods are quite useful and reliable, there are often cases that may show ABO discrepancy or mistyping between automated and manual methods, and such a discrepancy may be observed even between automated methods with different principles [6], [7], [8], [9].

Table 1 summarizes 30 reported cis-AB cases (including our case) that showed discrepant results across automated and manual methods. To the best of our knowledge, 15 cis-AB cases out of these 30 cases were detected due to weak reactions or flag signs in automated methods. It is noteworthy that the results of four cases out of these 15 cases (including our case) showed flag signs or discrepancy in only one automated method, although two automated methods were applied [7]. These four cases were found in the circumstance of evaluation study, not in the real-hospital practice; it implies that these cases could have been missed, if only one autoanalyzer was applied. Regarding the other 15 cis-AB cases, they were mistyped typical AB in automated methods [7, 9]; these cases were detected due to the laboratories’ own policy to utilize both automated and manual methods simultaneously when ABO grouping is requested. In immunohematology laboratories that implemented automated methods, a generally accepted workflow would be to perform a confirmatory manual method when triggered by abnormal results in automated methods. In other words, unless automated and manual methods were used simultaneously, these cases would not have been detected.

Table 1:

Cis-AB cases showing discrepant results between automated and manual methods (n=30).

Reference	Cases, n	Automated method			Manual method (tube or tile)		Genotype
Reference	Cases, n	Analyzer^a	Technology	Phenotype	Reagent^a	Phenotype	Genotype
Shin et al. [6]	1	IH-500	Gel CAT	Flag ‘?’	BIOSCOT	A & B (2+), anti-A & B (2+)	cis-AB/O
Chun et al. [7], (n=13)	5	Galileo NEO	Microplate method + SPRCA	AB	BioClone	A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O01
	2	QWALYS-3	EMT	AB		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O02
	1	QWALYS-3		Flag ‘?’		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	QWALYS-3		AB		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O01
	1^b	Galileo NEO		AB		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O01
	1^b	QWALYS-3		AB		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	Galileo NEO		AB		A₂B₃	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	QWALYS-3		AB		A₂B	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	Galileo NEO		Flag ‘?’		A₂B	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	QWALYS-3		AB		A₂B_w	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	Galileo NEO		Flag ‘?’		A₂B_w	cis-AB01/O02
	1^b	QWALYS-3		AB		A₁	cis-AB01/A102
	1^b	Galileo NEO		Discrepancy^c		A₁	cis-AB01/A102
Ryu et al. [8]	9	AutoVue Innova	Glass bead CAT	Weak reactions or flag signs^d	SIHDIA	NR	cis-AB01/O01
Lim et al. [9]	6	Erytra Eflexis	Gel CAT	AB	SIHDIA	A₂B_w	NR
Present case	1	QWALYS-3	EMT	Flag ‘?’	SIHDIA	A	cis-AB01/A102
		QWALYS-3	EMT	Flag ‘?’	Diagast	A₁B_w
		VISION Swift	Gel CAT	A	BioClone	A

^aManufacturer information on instruments and reagents (anti-A, B) are: IH-500 (Bio-rad, Cressier FR, Switzerland); QWALYS-3 & DIAGAST (Diagast, Loos, France); Galileo NEO (Immucor Gamma, Norcross, GA, USA); ORTHO AutoVue Innova & ORTHO VISION Swift & BioClone (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics. Raritan, NJ, USA); Erytra Eflexis (Grifols, Barcelona, Spain); BIOSCOT (Milipore LTD., Livingston, UK); SIHDIA (Shinyang Chemical, Seoul, Korea). ^bIn these five cases, ABO typing was conducted using both QWALYS-3 and Galileo NEO automated methods. ^cThis result showed anti-A 4+ in the red cell reaction and B cell 2+ in the serum reaction. ^dThese cases showed weak cell or serum reactions, or flag signs in an automated method; however, detailed results were not described. NR, not reported; CAT, column agglutination technique; SPRCA, solid phase red cell adherence; EMT, erythrocyte magnetized technology.

Taken together, these 30 cis-AB cases imply that the implementation of automated methods itself cannot necessarily guarantee reducing errors in ABO grouping, especially for rare ABO subgroups such as cis-AB. It was also noteworthy that two cis-AB cases were not detected even though two automated methods with different principles were used [7]. Moreover, our case showed the possibility of mistyping cis-AB, regardless of using both automated and manual methods; among the five methods (two automated methods and three manual methods), three methods could not detect cis-AB. In addition to the different performance of automated methods, our case demonstrates that results of manual method may vary depending on the sensitivity of reagents.

In transfusion practice, it is essential to implement immunohematological tests with high analytical sensitivity for safe transfusion. However, it is challenging to evaluate the analytical performance of immunohematological tests for rare ABO subgroups because of their low frequency. If external quality control material for rare ABO subgroups is available, it would help evaluate and develop the analytical performance of immunohematological tests. Vigorous effort, including external quality assessment (EQA)/proficiency testing programs, has been made to improve the laboratories’ quality worldwide [10]. Compared with other laboratory tests, immunohematological tests may be assumed that the accuracy of their nominal results can be clearly assessed, the analytical methods used are the same worldwide, and commutability has no effect [10]. However, the present cases underscore a practical issue that rare ABO subgroups may not be detected depending on the composition of autoanalyzer technologies and reagent sensitivity even in high-performance laboratories. Therefore, immunohematology laboratories should pay special attention to the possibility of ABO mistyping, especially in cases of rare ABO subgroup like cis-AB. In addition to the current EQA program service, it would be meaningful to extend the EQA scheme for detecting rare blood subgroups across reference laboratories. Further studies would be also required to explore the analytical performance of various methods for rare blood subgroups.

Corresponding author: Mina Hur, MD, PhD, Departsment of Laboratory Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, 120-1 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05030, Korea, Phone: +82-2-2030-5581, E-mail: dearmina@hanmail.net

Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: Shin E wrote the draft. Hur M conceived the study and revised the manuscript. Lee H performed the study. Kim H, Sohn IS, Park KU, and Seo DH provided the study materials and/or reviewed the manuscript. 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 Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.

References

1. Pagliaro, P. Errors in transfusion medicine are not only misidentifications of the recipient, but also pre-analytical and analytical errors. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1053–4. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2010.269.Search in Google Scholar

2. Chun, S, Choi, S, Yu, HB, Cho, D. Cis-AB, the blood group of many faces, is a conundrum to the novice eye. Ann Lab Med 2019;39:115–20. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2019.39.2.115.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Cho, D, Kee, SH, Jeon, MJ, Choi, KL, Kee, SJ, Shin, MG, et al.. The serological and genetic basis of the cis-AB blood group in Korea. Vox Sang 2004;87:41–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2004.00528.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. South, SF, Casina, TS, Li, L. Exponential error reduction in pre-transfusion testing with automation. Transfusion 2012;52:81S–7S. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03816.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Roback, JD, Denomme, GA, Billingsley, K, Bensing, K, Parsons, JC, McDonough, WC. Performance and reliability of a benchtop automated instrument for transfusion testing: a comparative multicenter clinical study in the US population. Transfusion 2019;59:3511–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.15520.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Shin, JW, Shin, WY, Lee, DL. Comparison of ABO blood group typing between automated blood bank analyzer IH-500 and manual method. Korean J Blood Transfus 2017;28:126–33. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2017.28.2.126.Search in Google Scholar

7. Chun, S, Ryu, MR, Cha, SY, Seo, JY, Cho, D. ABO mistyping of cis-AB blood group by the automated microplate technique. Transfus Med Hemotherapy 2018;45:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1159/000475506.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Ryu, SE, Lee, HJ, Kim, HR, Shin, KH, Kim, HH. Evaluation of the automated analyzer AutoVue innova for blood group typing: clinical implementation at a tertiary hospital over 2 years. Korean J Blood Transfus 2020;31:131–40. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2020.31.2.131.Search in Google Scholar

9. Lim, YA, Park, SJ, Cho, HS. Investigation of discrepant ABO blood grouping results from an automated method. Ann Lab Med 2022;42:650–8. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.6.650.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Buchta, C, Coucke, W, Huf, W, Griesmacher, A, Müller, MM, Mayr, WR, et al.. External quality assessment providers’ services appear to more impact the immunohaematology performance of laboratories than national regulatory and economic conditions. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:361–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-1219.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2023-01-24

Accepted: 2023-02-15

Published Online: 2023-02-24

Published in Print: 2023-07-26

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2023-0085

Keywords for this article

ABO blood group; automated method; cis-AB; discrepancy; manual method

Creative Commons

BY 4.0