Comparison of two single-platform ISHAGE-based CD34 enumeration protocols on BD FACSCalibur and FACSCanto flow cytometers.

Clinical Flow Cytometry Laboratory, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Cytotherapy (Impact Factor: 3.1). 06/2009; 11(5):595-605. DOI: 10.1080/14653240902923161
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Enumeration of viable CD34(+) cells provides critical information for the bone marrow (BM) transplant physician. The single-platform ISHAGE protocol is the most reliable method currently available to quantitate accurately this important subset of cells. Previous studies have shown that 5 CD34(+) cells/microL blood predicts the collection of at least 0.5x10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg patient weight. From the apheresis product, infusion of 2.5x10(6) viable CD34(+) cells (measured pre-cryopreservation)/kg patient weight will reliably permit engraftment of the hematopoietic system (as measured by the time to 20000 platelets/microL) by day 12-14 post-infusion.
We compared the CD34(+) cell numbers derived from Flow Count-based Stem-Kit; (Beckman Coulter) and Trucount tube-based stem cell enumeration (SCE) kit (BD Biosciences) ISHAGE templates on BD FACSCalibur and BD FACSCanto cytometers on 12 granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized peripheral blood (MPB) and 10 peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) samples.
Comparison of results showed that there was no statistical difference between samples run with Stem-Kit on the FACSCalibur versus SCE kit-based assays on either the FACSCalibur or FACSCanto. Mean results for the Stem-Kit/Calibur combination were 137, for SCE kit/Calibur 140 and for SCE kit/Canto 137 cells/microL. Pair-wise comparison of data based on rank order showed no statistically significant difference and all correlation coefficients had an R(2)>0.98.
The two kits generated very similar data on a range of fresh samples regardless of instrument platform. These results confirm and extend the utility of the single-platform ISHAGE protocols with a variety of reagent kits and instrument platforms.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ICE/R-ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide without or with rituximab) chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is an established regimen in refractory/relapsed lymphoma. Few studies have addressed which factors are important in determining peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization efficiency or nonmobilization following ICE/R-ICE. Between 2004 and 2013, 88 patients with refractory/relapsed lymphoma who received ICE/R-ICE salvage-chemotherapy prior to granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) stimulated PBSC mobilization at a single center were identified. Mobilization efficiency was assessed by time from ICE/R-ICE to day of harvest, duration of G-CSF use, days to peripheral blood (PB) CD34(+) ≥15/µL, PB CD34(+) number on harvest day, CD34(+) yield and nonmobilization rate. Median PB CD34(+) at harvest were 54/μL (7-524); median days to first apheresis was 15 (11-30); median harvested total CD34(+) were 5.46 × 10(6) /kg (0.96-44.36); 71 patients (80.7%) successfully mobilized; 20 (22.7%) patients were poor mobilizers; 14 (15.9%) patients were considered nonmobilizers with maximal PB CD34(+) <7/µL and did not proceed to apheresis. Six of 20 poor mobilizers were apheresed with PB CD34(+) 7-12/µL, 50% were successfully harvested. No differences were found between ICE and R-ICE regimens. Impaired mobilization efficiency was associated with age, remission status, >1 line of induction chemotherapy, four cycles ICE/R-ICE and grade 4 neutropenia. Prior bone marrow (BM) involvement was associated with nonmobilization. The majority of patients can be successfully mobilized with ICE/R-ICE. Prior BM involvement is associated with high rates of nonmobilization following ICE/R-ICE. Such patients may benefit from novel mobilization agents and/or alternative salvage regimens to ICE/R-ICE. J. Clin. Apheresis, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Journal of Clinical Apheresis 06/2014; 29(6). DOI:10.1002/jca.21340 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Cytotherapy 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.02.013 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background aims. Evaluation of the BD Stem Cell Enumeration Kit was conducted at four clinical sites with flow cytometry CD34(+) enumeration to assess agreement between two investigational methods: (i) the BD FACSCanto II and BD FACSCalibur systems and (ii) the predicate method (Beckman Coulter StemKit and StemTrol, Immunotech SAS, Beckman Coulter, Marseille Cedex 9, France). Methods. Leftover and delinked specimens (n = 1032) from clinical flow cytometry testing were analyzed on the BD FACSCanto II (n = 918) and BD FACSCalibur (n = 905) in normal and mobilized blood, frozen and thawed bone marrow and leucopheresis and cord blood anticoagulated with citrate phosphate dextrose, anticoagulant citrate dextrose solution A, heparin and ethylenediaminetetraacetate, alone or in combination. Fresh leucopheresis analysis addressed site equivalency for sample preparation, testing and analysis. Results. The mean relative bias showed agreement within predefined parameters for the BD FACSCanto II (-2.81 to 4.31 +/- 7.1) and BD FACS Calibur (-2.69 to 5.2 +/- 7.9). Results are reported as absolute and relative differences compared with the predicate for viable CD34(+), percentage of CD34(+) in CD45(+) and viable CD45(+) populations (or gates). Bias analyses of the distribution of the predicate low, mid and high bin values were done using BD FACSCanto II optimal gating and BD FACSCalibur manual gating for viable CD34+, percentage of CD34+ in CD45+ and viable CD45+. Bias results from both investigational methods show agreement. Deming regression analyses showed a linear relationship with R-2> 0.92 for both investigational methods. Discussion. In conclusion, the results from both investigational methods demonstrated agreement and equivalence with the predicate method for enumeration of absolute viable CD34+, percentage of viable CD34(+) in CD45+ and absolute viable CD45(+) populations.
    Cytotherapy 06/2014; 16(11). DOI:10.1016/j.jcyt.2014.03.006 · 3.10 Impact Factor


Available from
May 19, 2014