[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Engraftment after umbilical cord blood (UCB) transplantation is highly dependent on nucleated cell (NC) and CD34+ cell content. Current standard postthaw (PT) processing includes a wash step to remove dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), lysed red cells, and stroma. The contribution of the wash step to cell loss and ultimately the dose of cells available for transplant have yet to be systematically reported. This study examines the effect of the wash step as well as that of PT storage on various quality control variables of UCB units.
Ten units were thawed and washed based on the New York Blood Center method. Samples were removed from each unit at six time points: prefreeze (PF), immediately PT, immediately postwash (PW), and 1, 2, and 5 hours PW. On each sample, total nucleated cell (TNC) count, CD34+ cell enumeration, colony-forming unit (CFU)-granulocyte-macrophage, and viability assays (fluorescence microscopy [acridine orange/propidium iodide, or AO/PI] and flow cytometry [7-aminoactinomycin]) were obtained.
TNC counts decreased PT and at subsequent time points; the PT TNC recovery was 89 percent compared to 82 percent PW (p < 0.01). TNC recovery decreased to 90 percent of PW (82% of PT) values (p < 0.01) and 83 percent of PW (76% of PT) values (p < 0.001), at 2 and 5 hours PW, respectively. CD34+ cell loss PT was not significant. Viability by AO/PI decreased PT and plateaued over time. In contrast, viability by flow cytometry remained higher and increased slightly over time. CFUs were significantly lower PT, recovering PW.
Our data indicate that the thawing and washing results in a substantial loss of cells, with TNC loss approaching 20 percent when compared with PF counts; the wash step was responsible for nearly half of the cell loss. The reduced PT viability was expected. Elapse of time PW resulted in further loss of NCs but no detectable significant changes in CD34+ cell content and viability and/or CFU.
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Volume reduction of umbilical cord blood (UCB) units before infusion is standard in most transplant centers. We examined 26 patients who underwent transplantation from May 1997 to December 2001 with unmanipulated (n=18) or volume-reduced (n=8) UCB units for engraftment. Of 18 unmanipulated UCBT patients, 16 achieved ANC >500/mm(3), a median of 26 days (range, 16-104) post-UCBT; two died before engraftment on days +2 and +14. Of 18 unmanipulated UCBT patients, 10 achieved platelet recovery, a median of 60.5 days (range, 41-144) post-UCBT; eight patients died before platelet recovery +2 to +255 days post-UCBT. These results are similar to several reported studies and our series utilizing volume-reduced UCB units for UCBT. At a median follow-up of 29.5 months, the 100-day and 3-year overall survivals of unmanipulated UCBT were 61.1% (95% CI, 38.6-83.6) and 48.6% (95% CI, 24.8-72.4) and of volume-reduced UCBT were 60% (95% CI, 24.4-95.6) and 22.5% (95% CI, 0-58.7). There was no serious toxicity from UCB infusion using unmanipulated UCB units. We conclude that unmanipulated UCB units may be infused safely into UCBT patients with adequate engraftment and survival.
Bone Marrow Transplantation 07/2003; 32(2):145-50. · 3.54 Impact Factor
[show abstract][hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant has become an import tool for the treatment of high risk and advanced haematological diseases. However, allogeneic transplantation has been limited by the availability of suitable related and unrelated donors. The positive results with umbilical cord blood as an alternative source of haematopoietic stem cells for transplantation in the paediatric setting encouraged studies in adult patients. In adults, however, the progress of cord blood transplantation has been slower, in part limited by the limitation of cell dose. We review here the current state of the art on cord blood transplantation for adults, and discuss some of the newer strategies being pursued in order to improve its safety and efficacy.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.