ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: 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 (râ=â0.33) and mononuclear cells (MO- body fluid [BF]; râ=â0.26), as well as total cell (TC-BF) enumeration (râ=â0.50) and WBC-BF (râ=â0.50) 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.
