BACKGROUND: T-cell depletion of allografts markedly reduces the incidence of GvHD following BMT. The approach taken at our Center has utilized the physical separation method of counterflow centrifugal elutriation (CCE), augmented by recovery of stem cells from lymphocyte-rich fractions by immunoaffinity selection of CD34(+) stem cells. We wanted to compare the performance characteristics of three commercially available selection devices, as well as the clinical outcomes of patients who received allografts engineered by the different devices. METHODS: BM allografts were prepared for patients undergoing BMT for hematologic malignancies. BM cells were separated into lymphocyte-rich and lymphocyte-depleted fractions using CCE, followed by recovery of CD34(+) cells from the lymphocyte-rich fraction using one of three immunoselection devices [CellPro CEPRATE, Nexell Isolex 300i (software version 2.5) and AmCell CliniMACS]. Allografts consisted of the lymphocyte-depleted fraction plus the CD34-selected fraction. RESULTS: Yields of CD34(+) cells were comparable for the three devices. However, there were significant differences in purity (CEPRATE < Isolex 300i < CliniMACS) and time from start of fractionation to infusion (CEPRATE < CliniMACS < Isolex 300i). More technical problems were encountered with the Isolex 300i device. Allograft compositions were comparable. Transplant outcomes (engraftment and incidence of GvHD) also were comparable. DISCUSSION: Qualitatively and quantitatively, allografts prepared with the CEPRATE, Isolex 300i (v 2.5) and CliniMACS devices should be considered comparable for use in this setting and probably also for direct T-cell depletion of BM.
BACKGROUND: T-cell depletion of allografts markedly reduces the incidence of GvHD following BMT. The approach taken at our Center has utilized the physical separation method of counterflow centrifugal elutriation (CCE), augmented by recovery of stem cells from lymphocyte-rich fractions by immunoaffinity selection of CD34(+) stem cells. We wanted to compare the performance characteristics of three commercially available selection devices, as well as the clinical outcomes of patients who received allografts engineered by the different devices. METHODS: BM allografts were prepared for patients undergoing BMT for hematologic malignancies. BM cells were separated into lymphocyte-rich and lymphocyte-depleted fractions using CCE, followed by recovery of CD34(+) cells from the lymphocyte-rich fraction using one of three immunoselection devices [CellPro CEPRATE, Nexell Isolex 300i (software version 2.5) and AmCell CliniMACS]. Allografts consisted of the lymphocyte-depleted fraction plus the CD34-selected fraction. RESULTS: Yields of CD34(+) cells were comparable for the three devices. However, there were significant differences in purity (CEPRATE < Isolex 300i < CliniMACS) and time from start of fractionation to infusion (CEPRATE < CliniMACS < Isolex 300i). More technical problems were encountered with the Isolex 300i device. Allograft compositions were comparable. Transplant outcomes (engraftment and incidence of GvHD) also were comparable. DISCUSSION: Qualitatively and quantitatively, allografts prepared with the CEPRATE, Isolex 300i (v 2.5) and CliniMACS devices should be considered comparable for use in this setting and probably also for direct T-cell depletion of BM.
Authors: Carolyn A Keever-Taylor; Shelly Heimfeld; Kaitlyn C Steinmiller; Richard A Nash; Keith M Sullivan; Christine W Czarniecki; Tomeka C Granderson; Julia S Goldstein; Linda M Griffith Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Abba C Zubair; Sunita Malik; Athena Paulsen; Masakazu Ishikawa; Christopher McCoy; Peter X Adams; David Amrani; Marco Costa Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.414
Authors: E Rådestad; H Wikell; M Engström; E Watz; B Sundberg; S Thunberg; M Uzunel; J Mattsson; M Uhlin Journal: J Immunol Res Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.818