# Diagnostic Performance of Leukocyte Abnormality Detection in a Large Cohort of Healthy Blood Donors Using Sysmex XN Series Analyzers Integrated with Peripheral Blood Morphology and Flow Cytometry

## TL;DR

This study evaluates how well the Sysmex XN series detects leukocyte abnormalities in healthy blood donors, comparing automated analysis with manual and flow cytometry methods.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comprehensive evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the Sysmex XN series in detecting leukocyte abnormalities in a large cohort of healthy donors.

## Key findings

- WPC analysis provided higher specificity than WDF alone in detecting leukocyte abnormalities.
- Approximately 50% of flagged cases showed reactive morphological features confirmed by flow cytometry.
- Transient immune activation, possibly due to vaccination, influenced leukocyte flagging.

## Abstract

Background: The Sysmex XN series (XN-1000 and XN-9100, Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan) represents a latest-generation automated hematology platform integrating fluorescence-based technologies and multi-channel analysis (WDF and WPC) to improve leukocyte characterization. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Sysmex XN series in detecting leukocyte abnormalities flagged during routine complete blood count analysis in a large cohort of healthy donors, using morphological assessment and flow cytometry as confirmatory methods. Methods: Approximately 8000 healthy blood donors from the AOU Meyer Transfusion Centre were evaluated between 2021 and 2024. All samples underwent CBC analysis using the XN-1000 and XN-9100 analyzers with the WDF channel. Samples showing WBC-related flags were subjected to reflex testing with the WPC channel, followed by digital blood smear review using the DI-60 system (CellaVision, Lund, Sweden) and flow cytometric immunophenotyping. Results: WDF flags for “blasts/abnormal lymphocytes” were identified in 23 samples. Two samples were negative on WPC analysis as well as on morphological and flow cytometric evaluation. Among the remaining cases, WPC analysis identified flags for abnormal lymphocytes, atypical lymphocytes, or blasts, which were variably associated with reactive changes, transient immune activation, or clonal lymphoproliferative conditions. In one donor, monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis was diagnosed by flow cytometry. Overall, reactive morphological features confirmed by flow cytometry were observed in approximately 50% of flagged cases. Conclusions: WPC analysis provides relevant additional diagnostic information and demonstrates higher specificity compared with the WDF channel alone; however, it does not fully resolve all instrument-generated flags, confirming the essential role of morphological assessment. Interestingly, the frequent occurrence of inflammatory profiles in recently vaccinated donors suggests that transient immune activation may influence leukocyte flagging. Larger studies are warranted to further investigate this association and to optimize the diagnostic performance of the WPC channel in donor screening.