Automated and manual microscopic analyses for leukocyte differential counts in exudative pleural effusions: Real-world disagreement and clinical application

Differential leukocyte counts of pleural fluid are routinely recommended for the early diagnosis and management of exudative pleural effusions. Rapid automated cellular analysis agrees strongly with standard manual microscopic counts and has become a reality in many clinical laboratories. However, discordant results sometimes observed between automated and manual analyses raise concern about using automated analysis to aid prompt differential diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world disagreement between automated and manual leukocyte analyses in exudative pleural effusions and to investigate whether the discordant results occur in specific cellular ranges or randomly. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who were diagnosed with parapneumonic pleural effusions (PPE), tuberculous pleural effusions (TPE), and malignant pleural effusions (MPE) between September 2018 and December 2020. Differential and predominant leukocyte counts were performed using an automated XN-350 analyzer with a two-part differential count consisting of polymorphonuclear (PMN) and mononuclear (MN) leukocytes and a manual method with Wright-stained cytospin slides. We compared the two methods on cases of 109 PPEs, 50 TPEs, and 116 MPEs. Although the overall correlation between the two methods for differential leukocyte counts was excellent, there were etiologic variations; MPEs showed a lower correlation compared to PPEs and TPEs. Automated-PMN predominance almost corresponded to manual cytospin-neutrophilic predominance. In contrast, ~10% of the automated-MN predominance did not correspond with the cytospin-lymphocytic predominance. These discrepancies occurred most in the automated-MN% range of 51% to 60%, followed by 61% to 70%. The PMN% range ≥50% and <30% on the automated analysis reliably corresponds to the neutrophilic and lymphocytic predominance, respectively. However, the MN% range of 51% to 70% may not coincide with lymphocytic predominance on manual cytospin analysis. This range leaves the potential cause of exudative pleural effusions open.

Performance Evaluation of Body Fluid Cellular Analysis Using the Beckman Coulter UniCel DxH 800, Sysmex XN-350, and UF-5000 Automated Cellular Analyzers

BACKGROUND

Automated cellular analyzers are expected to improve the analytical performance in body fluid (BF) analysis. We evaluated the analytical performance of three automated cellular analyzers and established optimum reflex analysis guidelines.

METHODS

A total of 542 BF samples (88 cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] samples and 454 non-CSF samples) were examined using manual counting and three automated cellular analyzers: UniCel DxH 800 (Beckman Coulter), XN-350 (Sysmex), and UF-5000 (Sysmex). Additionally, 2,779 BF analysis results were retrospectively reviewed. For malignant cell analysis, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used, and the detection of high fluorescence-BF cells (HF-BFs) using the XN-350 analyzer was compared with cytology results.

RESULTS

All three analyzers showed good agreement for total nucleated cell (TNC) and red blood cell (RBC) counts, except for the RBC count in CSF samples using the UniCel DxH 800. However, variable degrees of differences were observed during differential cell counting. For malignant cell analysis, the area under the curve was 0.63 for the XN-350 analyzer and 0.76 for manual counting. We established our own reflex analysis guidelines as follows: HF-BFs <0.7/100 white blood cells (WBCs) is the criterion for quick scans with 100× magnification microscopic examination as a rule-out cut-off, while HF-BFs >83.4/100 WBCs or eosinophils >3.8% are the criteria for mandatory double check confirmation with 1,000× magnification examination.

CONCLUSIONS

The three automated analyzers showed good analytical performances. Application of reflex analysis guidelines is recommended for eosinophils and HF-BFs, and manual confirmation is warranted.

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.

Laboratory testing of extravascular body fluids: National recommendations on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Part I - Serous fluids

Extravascular body fluids (EBF) analysis can provide useful information in the differential diagnosis of conditions that caused their accumulation. Their unique nature and particular requirements accompanying EBF analysis need to be recognized in order to minimize possible negative implications on patient safety. This recommendation was prepared by the members of the Working group for extravascular body fluid samples (WG EBFS). It is designed to address the total testing process and clinical significance of tests used in EBF analysis. The recommendation begins with a chapter addressing validation of methods used in EBF analysis, and continues with specific recommendations for serous fluids analysis. It is organized in sections referring to the preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phase with specific recommendations presented in boxes. Its main goal is to assist in the attainment of national harmonization of serous fluid analysis and ultimately improve patient safety and healthcare outcomes. This recommendation is intended to all laboratory professionals performing EBF analysis and healthcare professionals involved in EBF collection and processing. Cytological and microbiological evaluations of EBF are beyond the scope of this document.

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.

Automated cell counts on CSF samples: A multicenter performance evaluation of the GloCyte system

OBJECTIVES

Automated cell counters have replaced manual enumeration of cells in blood and most body fluids. However, due to the unreliability of automated methods at very low cell counts, most laboratories continue to perform labor-intensive manual counts on many or all cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples. This multicenter clinical trial investigated if the GloCyte System (Advanced Instruments, Norwood, MA), a recently FDA-approved automated cell counter, which concentrates and enumerates red blood cells (RBCs) and total nucleated cells (TNCs), is sufficiently accurate and precise at very low cell counts to replace all manual CSF counts.

METHODS

The GloCyte System concentrates CSF and stains RBCs with fluorochrome-labeled antibodies and TNCs with nucleic acid dyes. RBCs and TNCs are then counted by digital image analysis. Residual adult and pediatric CSF samples obtained for clinical analysis at five different medical centers were used for the study. Cell counts were performed by the manual hemocytometer method and with the GloCyte System following the same protocol at all sites. The limits of the blank, detection, and quantitation, as well as precision and accuracy of the GloCyte, were determined.

RESULTS

The GloCyte detected as few as 1 TNC/μL and 1 RBC/μL, and reliably counted as low as 3 TNCs/μL and 2 RBCs/μL. The total coefficient of variation was less than 20%. Comparison with cell counts obtained with a hemocytometer showed good correlation (>97%) between the GloCyte and the hemocytometer, including at very low cell counts.

CONCLUSIONS

The GloCyte instrument is a precise, accurate, and stable system to obtain red cell and nucleated cell counts in CSF samples. It allows for the automated enumeration of even very low cell numbers, which is crucial for CSF analysis. These results suggest that GloCyte is an acceptable alternative to the manual method for all CSF samples, including those with normal cell counts.

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

INTRODUCTION

Cellular analysis in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) provides important diagnostic information in many pathological settings. The aim of this two-site study was to evaluate the Sysmex XN Body Fluid mode (XN-BF) for cell analysis of CSF compared to light microscopy (LM).

METHODS

Two hundred and seven consecutive CSF samples were analyzed in parallel with XN-BF and LM. The study also included the estimation of the limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), limit of quantitation (LoQ), carry-over and linearity of XN-BF module.

RESULTS

LoQ of white blood cells (WBC) was 3×10⁶  cells/L; linearity was good and carry-over negligible. XN-BF parameters were compared to LM for the following cell classes: total cells, WBC, polymorphonuclear (PMN), and mononuclear (MN) cells. The bias ranged from 1.3 to 15.2×10⁶  cells/L. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis for WBC showed an area under the curve of 0.98, and the global diagnostic agreement was 95% at a cutoff of 5×10⁶  cells/L.

CONCLUSIONS

XN-BF provides rapid and accurate counts in clinically relevant ranges of CSF values, thus providing a valuable alternative to conventional LM analysis. However, microscopic review remains advisable in samples with abnormal cell counts or high fluorescent (HF-BF) cell parameter exceeding 5×10⁶  cells/L.

Optimization of Cellular analysis of Synovial Fluids by optical microscopy and automated count using the Sysmex XN Body Fluid Mode

BACKGROUND

This study was planned to assess the impact of pre-treating synovial fluid (SF) samples with hyaluronidase (HY), defining the best procedure for optical microscopy (OM) analysis and evaluating the performance of Sysmex XN-9000 Body Fluid module (XN-BF).

METHODS

The cell count by OM was carried out both with and without HY pre-treatment, and using 3 different types of staining reagents. The evaluation of XN-BF included data comparison with OM (100 SFs), carryover, Limit of Blank (LoB), Limit of Detection (LoD), Limit of Quantitation (LoQ) and linearity.

RESULTS

Unlike cell count in Burker's chamber and staining with Stromatol, pre-treatment with HY and staining with Methylene Blue and Turk's promoted cell clustering. The SF samples pre-treated with HY displayed excellent morphological quality, contrary to samples without HY pre-treatment. Excellent correlation was found between total cells counting with both OM and XN-BF. Satisfactory agreement was also observed between polymorphonuclear neutrophils compared to XN-BF parameter, whereas mononuclear cell count on XN-BF had suboptimal agreement with OM. The carryover was negligible. The LoB, LoD, LoQ and linearity were excellent.

CONCLUSION

XN-BF displays excellent performance, which makes it a reliable and practical alternative to OM for SF samples analysis in clinical laboratories.

Evaluation of Mindray BC-6800 body fluid mode for automated cerebrospinal fluid cell counting

Background:

Cellular analysis in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) provides important diagnostic information in various medical conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application of Mindray BC-6800 body fluid (BF) mode in cytometric analysis of CSF compared to light microscopy (LM).

Methods:

One hundred and twenty-nine consecutive CSF samples were analyzed by BC-6800-BF mode as well as by LM. The study also included limits of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD), limit of quantitation (LoQ), carryover and linearity.

Results

White blood cells LoQ was 4.0×10

Conclusions:

BC-6800-BF offers rapid and accurate counts in clinically relevant concentration ranges, replacing LM for most samples. However, in samples with abnormal cell counts or with abnormal white blood cell differential scattergrams the need to microscopic review for a correct clinical outcome remains.