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.