Two-site evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the Sysmex XN Body Fluid (BF) module for cell count and differential in Cerebrospinal Fluid

Two cases with discrepancy in the quantitative cytological assessment of cerebrospinal fluid in neonatal samples using light microscopy in comparison with Sysmex XN-1000

We present two cases from the neonatal department with cerebrospinal fluid examination. We revealed a striking discrepancy in polymorphonuclear (PMN) and mononuclear (MN) cell counts using conventional light microscopy in comparison with automated analyzer Sysmex XN-1000 (PMNs - 13 vs. 173x106/L, MNs - 200 vs. 67x106/L in case 1 and PMNs - 13 vs. 372x106/L, MNs - 411 vs. 179x106/L in case 2). We revealed the dominant presence of hemosiderophages in both cases in cytospin slide. Even though Sysmex XN-1000 offers fast examination with a low sample volume, there is possibility of misdiagnosis, with negative impact on the patient.

Analytical performance of the digital morphology analyzer Sysmex DI-60 for body fluid cell differential counts

BACKGROUND

Sysmex DI-60 (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan) is a digital morphology (DM) analyzer widely used in clinical laboratories and supports body fluid (BF) applications. We evaluated analytical performance of DI-60 compared with XN-350 (Sysmex) and manual counting for BF cell differential counts.

METHODS

A total of 213 BF samples were collected (47 cerebrospinal fluid [CSF], 80 pleural fluid, and 86 ascites samples). The analytical performance of DI-60 for BF cell differential counts was evaluated based on sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement. BF cell differential counts obtained by DI-60 were compared with those obtained by XN-350 and manual counting.

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity was high for neutrophils, lymphocytes, and macrophages (range, 83.1-99.4%). The overall specificity and overall accuracy were high for all cell types (range, 95.3-99.7% and 94.3-99.3%, respectively). The agreement between DI-60 pre-classification and verification was strong (κ = 0.89). The absolute mean differences between DI-60 verification and XN-350 ranged from 0.26 to 11.05, and differences between DI-60 verification and manual counting ranged from 0.01 to 4.76.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to evaluate the performance of DI-60 compared with XN-350 and manual counting for BF cell differential counts. DI-60 showed reliable performance with CSF, pleural fluid, and ascites samples. For BF cell differential counts, DI-60 may be a better option than XN-350 and could be used for screening purposes in understaffed laboratories. To improve the hematology workflow for BF cell differential counting, the DM analyzer needs to be optimized by taking into account the laboratory situation and unmet needs, and the clinical laboratory needs to establish criteria for verification and manual slide review.

Technological features of blast identification in the cerebrospinal fluid: A systematic review of flow cytometry and laboratory haematology methods

BACKGROUND

Involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) by acute leukemias (ALs) has important implications for risk stratification and disease outcome. The clinical laboratory plays an essential role in assessment of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens from patients with ALs at initial diagnosis, at the end of treatment, and when CNS involvement is clinically suspected. The two challenges for the laboratory are 1) to accurately provide a cell count of the CSF and 2) to successfully distinguish blasts from other cell types. These tasks are classically performed using manual techniques, which suffer from suboptimal turnaround time, imprecision, and inconsistent inter-operator performance. Technological innovations in flow cytometry and hematology analyzer technology have provided useful complements and/or alternatives to conventional manual techniques.

AIMS

We performed a PRISMA-compliant systematic review to address the medical literature regarding the development and current state of the art of CSF blast identification using flow cytometry and laboratory hematology technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE (PubMed interface), Web of Science, and Embase using the keywords "CSF or cerebrospinal" AND "blasts(s)".

RESULTS

108 articles were suitable for inclusion in our systematic review. These articles covered 1) clinical rationale for CSF blast identification; 2) morphology-based CSF blast identification; 3) the role of flow cytometry; 4) use of hematology analyzers for CSF blast identification; and 5) quality issues. 9 /L, which is much lower than the original machine count and platelet transfusion was warranted.

DISCUSSION

1) Clinical laboratory testing plays a central role in risk stratification and clinical management of patients with acute leukemias, most clearly in pediatric ALs; 2) studies focused on other patient populations, including adults and patients with AML are less prevalent in the literature; 3) improvements in instrumentation may provide better performance for the classification of CSF specimens.

CONCLUSION

Current challenges include: 1) more precisely characterizing the natural history of AL involvement of the CNS, 2) improvements in automated cell count technology of low cellularity specimens, 3) defining the role of flow MRD testing of CSF specimens and 4) improved recognition of specimen quality by clinicians and laboratory personnel.

Performance evaluation of automated cell counts compared with reference methods for body fluid analysis

OBJECTIVES

Cellular analysis of body fluids (BFs) can assist clinicians for the diagnosis of many medical conditions. The aim of this work is the evaluation of the analytical performance of the UF-5000 body fluid mode (UF-BF) analyzer compared to the gold standard method (optical microscopy, OM) and to XN-1000 (XN-BF), another analyzer produced by the same manufacturer (Sysmex) and with a similar technology for BF analysis.

METHODS

One hundred BF samples collected in K₃EDTA tubes were analyzed by UF-BF, XN-BF and OM. The agreement was evaluated using Passing and Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plot analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were selected for evaluating the diagnostic agreement between OM classification and UF-BF parameters.

RESULTS

Comparison between UF-BF and OM, in all BF types, showed Passing and Bablok's slope comprised between 0.99 (polymorphonuclear cells count, PMN-BF) and 1.39 (mononuclear cells count, MN-BF), the intercepts ranged between 26.47 (PMN-BF parameter) and 226.80 (white blood cell count). Bland-Altman bias was comprised between 7.3% (total cell count, TC-BF) and 52.9% (MN-BF). Comparison between UF-BF and XN-BF in all BF showed slopes ranged between 1.07 (TC-BF and PMN-BF) and 1.16 (MN-BF), intercepts ranged between 8.30 (PMN) and 64.78 (WBC-BF). Bland-Altman bias ranged between 5.8 (TC-BF) and 21.1% (MN-BF). The ROC curve analysis showed an area under the curve ranged between 0.9664 and 1.000.

CONCLUSIONS

UF-BF shows very good performance for the differential counts of cells in ascitic, pleural and synovial fluids and therefore it is useful to screen and count cells in this type of BF.

A sample-preparation-free, automated, sample-to-answer system for cell counting in human body fluids

While many clinical laboratory tests are now highly automated, body fluid cell counting, particularly in low-cellularity samples such as cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), is often performed manually. Here, we report a simple, cost-effective method to obtain white and red blood cell counts from human body fluids such as CSF. The method consists of a compact, automated, and low-cost fluorescence microscope system, coupled to a sample chamber containing all of the necessary reagents in dry form to stain and prepare the sample. Sample focus and scanning are handled automatically, and the acquired multimodal images are automatically analyzed to extract cell counts. Comparison with manual counting on over 200 clinical samples shows excellent agreement. As the system counts a substantially larger image region than a standard manual cell count, we find our sensitivity to extremely low cellularity samples to potentially be higher than the manual gold standard, evidenced by our system recording images of cells in samples whose cell count was registered as "0" by a trained user. Thus, our system holds promise for routine, automated, and sensitive analysis of body fluids whose cellularity extends across a wide dynamic range.

Automated Analysis of Cerebrospinal Fluid Cells Using Commercially Available Blood Cell Analysis Devices-A Critical Appraisal

The analysis of cells in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a routine procedure that is usually performed manually using the Fuchs–Rosenthal chamber and cell microscopy for cell counting and differentiation. In order to reduce the requirement for manual assessment, automated analyses by devices mainly used for blood cell analysis have been also used for CSF samples. Here, we summarize the current state of investigations using these automated devices and critically review their limitations. Despite technical improvements, the lower limit for reliable leukocyte counts in the CSF is still at approximately 20 cells/µL, to be validated depending on the device. Since the critical range for clinical decisions is in the range of 5–30 cells/µL this implies that cell numbers < 30/µL require a manual confirmation. Moreover, the lower limit of reliable erythrocyte detection by automated devices is at approximately 1000/µL. However, even low erythrocyte numbers may be of clinical importance. In contrast, heavily hemorrhagic samples from neurosurgery may be counted automatically at an acceptable precision more quickly. Finally, cell differentiation by automated devices provides only a rough orientation for lymphocytes, granulocytes and monocytes. Other diagnostically important cell types such as tumor cells, siderophages, blasts and others are not reliably detected. Thus, although the automation may give a gross estimate sufficient for the emergency room situation, each CSF requires a manual microscopy for cytological evaluation for the final report. In conclusion, although automated analysis of CSF cells may provide a first orientation of the cell profile in an individual sample, an additional manual cell count and a microscopic cytology are still required and represent the gold standard.

Automated cell count in body fluids: a review

Body fluid cell counting provides valuable information for the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of conditions. Chamber cell count and cellularity analysis by optical microscopy are considered the gold-standard method for cell counting. However, this method has a long turnaround time and limited reproducibility, and requires highly-trained personnel. In the recent decades, specific modes have been developed for the analysis of body fluids. These modes, which perform automated cell counting, are incorporated into hemocytometers and urine analyzers. These innovations have been rapidly incorporated into routine laboratory practice. At present, a variety of analyzers are available that enable automated cell counting for body fluids. Nevertheless, these analyzers have some limitations and can only be operated by highly-qualified laboratory professionals. In this review, we provide an overview of the most relevant automated cell counters currently available for body fluids, the interpretation of the parameters measured by these analyzers, their main analytical features, and the role of optical microscopy as automated cell counters gain ground.

A comparison of the analysis of 3 types of body fluids using the XN-350 hematology analyzer versus light microscopy assessment

We evaluated the capacity of the XN-350 instrument to analyze 3 different types of body fluid samples under "body fluid mode."The performance of XN-350 was evaluated in terms of precision, carryover, limit of blank, limit of detection, limit of quantification, and linearity. Cell enumeration and differential data produced by the XN-350 were compared to manual chamber counting results in 63 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 51 ascitic fluid, and 51 pleural fluid (PF) samples. Comparisons between XN-350 versus Cytospin data were also performed in PF samples.The precision, carry-over, limit of blank, and linearity of the XN-350 were acceptable. The limits of detection for white blood cells (WBCs) and red blood cells were 1.0/μL, and 1,000.0/μL, respectively; the corresponding limits of quantitation (LOQs) were 5.0/μL and 2,000.0/μL, respectively. The XN-350's cell enumeration and differential counting correlated well with those of manual chamber counting for all 3 sample types (except for differential counting in CSF samples), particularly parameters involving monocytes (r = 0.33) and mononuclear cells (MO- body fluid [BF]; r = 0.26), as well as total cell (TC-BF) enumeration (r = 0.50) and WBC-BF (r = 0.50) in PF samples. The MO-BF in CSF samples differed significantly from manual chamber counting results, but neither TC-BF nor WBC-BF in PF samples did. The XN-350 also showed good correlations with Cytospin analyses for differential counting of neutrophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes in PF samples. The differential counting of eosinophils via the XN-350 and Cytospin were not significantly correlated, but the difference between them was not significant.The XN-350 is an acceptable alternative to manual fluid analysis. Samples with low cellularity around the LOQ should be checked manually. Moreover, manual differential counting should be performed on CSF samples, particularity those with low cell numbers.

Double-filtered leukoreduction as a method for risk reduction of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease

Background

Transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GvHD) is caused by leukocytes, specifically T cells within a transfused blood product. Currently, the prevention of transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease is performed by irradiation of blood products. With a sufficient reduction of leukocytes, the risk for TA-GvHD can be decreased. With consistent advances in current state-of-the-art blood filters, we herein propose that double filtration can sufficiently reduce leukocytes to reduce the risk for TA-GvHD.

Materials

Thirty RBC concentrates were filtered with leukocyte filters, followed by storage at 1–6 ^oC for 72 hours, and then a second filtration was performed. Residual leukocytes in the double-filtered RBC units (n = 30) were assessed with flow cytometric methods, and an additional assay with isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (n = 6) was done by both flow cytometric methods and an automated hematology analyzer. Quality of the RBCs after filtration was evaluated by hematological and biochemical tests. In vitro T cell expansion was performed using anti-CD3/CD28-coated Dynabeads or anti-CD3 (OKT3). In vivo experiment for GvHD was performed by using NOD.Cg-Prkdc^scid Il2rg^tm1Wjl/SzJ (NSG) mice.

Results

Double-filtered blood products showed residual leukocyte levels below detection limits, which calculated to be below 1200–2500 cells per blood unit. In vitro expansion rate of T cells showed that 6x10³ and 1x10³ cell-seeded specimens showed 60.8±10.6 fold and 10.2±9.7-fold expansion, respectively. Cell expansion was not sufficiently observed in wells planted with 1x10² or 10 cells. In vivo experiments showed that mice injected with 1x10⁵ or more cells cause fatal GvHD. GvHD induced inflammation was observed in mice injected with 1x10⁴ or more cells. No evidence of GvHD was found in mice injected with 10³ cells.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that additional removal of contaminating lymphocytes by a second leukodepletion step may further reduce the risk for TA-GvHD.

Two-site evaluation of a new workflow for the detection of malignant cells on the Sysmex XN-1000 body fluid analyzer

INTRODUCTION

The presence of high fluorescent cells (HF-BF) on the Sysmex XN-1000 hematology analyzers has gained interest regarding the prediction of malignant cells in body fluids, but lacks sensitivity. We aimed to increase this sensitivity by combining HF-BF value, automated results, and clinical information.

METHODS

We evaluated a new workflow for the management of body fluids in the hematology laboratory, including the HF-BF criterion and clinical information. In two laboratories, 1623 serous fluids were retrospectively analyzed on the XN-1000 BF mode. All samples were morphologically screened for malignant cells. Optimal HF-BF cutoffs were determined to predict their presence. Thereafter, the added value of clinical information was evaluated. Other reflex testing rules (eosinophilic count >5% and presence of the WBC Abnormal Scattergram flag) were also used to refine our workflow.

RESULTS

Optimal HF-BF cutoffs in the two hematology centers were 108 and 45 cells/µL, yielding a sensitivity/specificity of 66.7/93.6% and 86.8/66.6% for malignant cell detection. When adding clinical information, sensitivity/specificity evolved to 100.0/68.9% and 100.0%/not determined. Of 104 samples containing malignant cells, 97 had positive clinical information; the remainder had a HF-BF > cutoff.

CONCLUSION

Combining clinical information and HF-BF reached 100% sensitivity for malignant cell detection in body fluid analysis. Lack of robustness of the optimal HF-BF cutoff deserves the use of local cutoffs. Rapid automated results reporting from the XN-1000 BF mode are also feasible in clinical practice. Prospective evaluation of the workflow is needed before its implementation in clinical practice.

Evaluation of a routine hematology analyzer for quality control of leukoreduced plasma

BACKGROUND

Quality control of residual white blood cells (WBCs) and red blood cells (RBCs) in leukoreduced plasma is mandatory. Although technological advances have been made, analysis of quality controls using routine hematology analyzers has not generally been introduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the routine hematology analyzer Sysmex XN-10, (Sysmex Nordic ApS) could be used for quality control of residual WBCs and RBCs in leukoreduced plasma.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Linearity, accuracy, and precision were established for two Sysmex XN-10 analyzers using spiked donor plasma. ADAM rWBC (NanoEnTek) and manual counting in the Bürker chamber (NanoEnTek) were reference methods for WBCs and RBCs, respectively. Twenty-five consecutive leukoreduced donor plasma samples were also tested.

RESULTS

For WBCs, the linearity criteria were met for the ADAM rWBC, but not for the Sysmex XN-10 instruments. Precision on both Sysmex XN-10 instruments was accurate only at 6 cells/μL, and accuracy was consistently acceptable only at 5 to 6 cells/μL. The precision and accuracy of the ADAM rWBC were acceptable at 2 to 6 cells/μL. For RBCs, both Sysmex XN-10 instruments and manual counting in the Bürker chamber were linear and fulfilled the precision criteria. Accuracy was acceptable for both Sysmex instruments at 6 to 12 × 10⁹ WBCs/L but fluctuated within the study's measuring range for the Bürker chamber. No false-positive results were seen in the 25 consecutive donor plasma samples tested.

CONCLUSION

For quality control purposes of leukoreduced plasma, the Sysmex XN-10 analyzer is suitable for the enumeration of residual RBCs but not of residual WBCs.

Comparison between optical microscopy and automation for cytometric analysis of pericardial fluids in a cohort of adult subjects undergoing cardiac surgery

Aims

Limited information is available on number and type of cells present in the pericardial fluid (PF). Current evidence and has been garnered with inaccurate application of guidelines for analysis of body fluids. This study was aimed at investigating the performance of automate cytometric analysis of PF in adult subjects.

Methods

Seventy-four consecutive PF samples were analysed with Sysmex XN with a module for body fluid analysis (XN-BF) and optical microscopy (OM). The study also encompassed the assessment of limit of blank, limit of detection and limit of quantitation (LoQ), imprecision, carryover and linearity of XN-BF module.

Results

XN-BF parameters were compared with OM for the following cell classes: total cells (TC), leucocytes (white blood cell [WBC]), polymorphonuclear (PMN) and mononuclear (MN) cells. The relative bias were −4.5%, 71.2%, 108.2% and −47.7%, respectively. Passing and Bablok regression yielded slope comprised between 0.06 for MN and 5.8 for PMN, and intercept between 0.7 for PMN and 220.3 for MN. LoQ was comprised between 3.8×106 and 6.0×106 cells/L for WBC and PMN. Linearity was acceptable and carryover negligible.

Conclusions

PF has a specific cellular composition. Overall, automated cell counting can only be suggested for total number of cells, whereas OM seems still the most reliable option for cell differentiation.

Lack of harmonization in high fluorescent cell automated counts with body fluids mode in ascitic, pleural, synovial, and cerebrospinal fluids

INTRODUCTION

Cellular analysis in body fluids (BFs) provides important diagnostic information in various pathological settings. This study was hence aimed at comparing automated cell count obtained with Mindray BC-6800 (BC-BF) vs Sysmex XN-series (XN-BF) and evaluating other quantitative and qualitative information provided by these analyzers in ascitic (AF), pleural (PF), synovial (SF), and cerebrospinal (CSF) fluids.

METHODS

Three hundred and fifty-one samples (99 AFs, 45 PFs, 75 SFs, and 132 CSFs) were analyzed in parallel with BC-BF, XN-BF, and optical microscopy (OM). The study also included the assessment of diagnostic agreement among BC-BF, XN-BF, and OM.

RESULTS

The comparison of BC-BF vs XN-BF yielded slopes of Passing and Bablok regression always comprised between 0.9 and 1.0 except for EO-BF and HF-BF, whilst the intercepts ranged from -0.4 for MN-BF and 12.0 for PMN-BF. The bias was comprised between -103.3% and 67.1% for HF-BF and EO-BF, respectively. A significant bias was found for TC-BF, WBC-BF, HF-BF (negative bias) and for PMN-BF and EO-BF (positive bias). The agreement (Cohen's kappa) between XN-BF and BC-BF was always ≥0.7, ranging between 0.87 in CSFs and 0.94 in AFs, and that with OM was similar (ie, 0.85 and 0.96).

CONCLUSION

The cytometric analysis of BF samples using BC-BF and XN-BF is clinically favorable when appropriately combined with OM. Quantitative and qualitative parameters displayed optimal agreement, whilst instrument-specific cut-offs should be defined and implemented for HF-BF and EO-BF. Further efforts should be made for achieving better harmonization in cytometric analysis of BF samples.