BACKGROUND: . The fact that only a small percentage of cord blood units (CBU) stored are actually used for transplantation contributes to raising the already high costs of their processing and cryopreservation. The identification of predictors allowing the early identification of suitable CBU would allow a reduction of costs for the collection, storage and characterisation of CBU with insufficient volume or cell numbers. In our bank we have adopted a cut-off value for using CBU of 8 x 10(8) nucleated cells and a volume >or= 60 mL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 365 banked CBU, we evaluated the correlation between neonatal/gestational parameters and laboratory data used to assess their quality. RESULTS: Biparietal diameter (BPD) and abdominal circumference were significantly and positively correlated with CBU volume (r(2)=0.12, p=0.0011 and r(2)=0.092, p=0.0063, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that both parameters can be used to identify CBU with insufficient volume (BPD: area under the curve 0.69, 95% CI=0.57-0.82, p=0.004; abdominal circumference: area under the curve 0.67, 95% CI=0.54-0.79, p<0.01). BPD and head circumference, but not abdominal circumference or femoral length, were positively correlated with white blood cell (WBC) count (r(2)=0.215, p=0.031, and r(2)=0.299, p=0.015, respectively). Abdominal circumference, but not BPD, head circumference or femoral length, was statistically significantly correlated with the number of CD34(+) cells in the CBU. Weight at birth and placental weight were positively correlated with WBC count, blood volume, CD34(+) cell count, total colony-forming units and burst-forming units. CONCLUSION: . Pre-birth assessment of BPD might allow the selection of donors who would yield CBU of sufficient volume and WBC count and avoid the costs of collecting, transferring, storing and analysing CBU with a high probability of resulting unsuitable for transplantation.
BACKGROUND: . The fact that only a small percentage of cord blood units (CBU) stored are actually used for transplantation contributes to raising the already high costs of their processing and cryopreservation. The identification of predictors allowing the early identification of suitable CBU would allow a reduction of costs for the collection, storage and characterisation of CBU with insufficient volume or cell numbers. In our bank we have adopted a cut-off value for using CBU of 8 x 10(8) nucleated cells and a volume >or= 60 mL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 365 banked CBU, we evaluated the correlation between neonatal/gestational parameters and laboratory data used to assess their quality. RESULTS: Biparietal diameter (BPD) and abdominal circumference were significantly and positively correlated with CBU volume (r(2)=0.12, p=0.0011 and r(2)=0.092, p=0.0063, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that both parameters can be used to identify CBU with insufficient volume (BPD: area under the curve 0.69, 95% CI=0.57-0.82, p=0.004; abdominal circumference: area under the curve 0.67, 95% CI=0.54-0.79, p<0.01). BPD and head circumference, but not abdominal circumference or femoral length, were positively correlated with white blood cell (WBC) count (r(2)=0.215, p=0.031, and r(2)=0.299, p=0.015, respectively). Abdominal circumference, but not BPD, head circumference or femoral length, was statistically significantly correlated with the number of CD34(+) cells in the CBU. Weight at birth and placental weight were positively correlated with WBC count, blood volume, CD34(+) cell count, total colony-forming units and burst-forming units. CONCLUSION: . Pre-birth assessment of BPD might allow the selection of donors who would yield CBU of sufficient volume and WBC count and avoid the costs of collecting, transferring, storing and analysing CBU with a high probability of resulting unsuitable for transplantation.
Authors: E Gluckman; H A Broxmeyer; A D Auerbach; H S Friedman; G W Douglas; A Devergie; H Esperou; D Thierry; G Socie; P Lehn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-10-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K K Ballen; M Wilson; J Wuu; A M Ceredona; C Hsieh; F M Stewart; M A Popovsky; P J Quesenberry Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: E D Thomas; R A Clift; A Fefer; F R Appelbaum; P Beatty; W I Bensinger; C D Buckner; M A Cheever; H J Deeg; K Doney Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1986-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A Abu-Ghosh; S Goldman; V Slone; C van de Ven; Y Suen; L Murphy; L Sender; M Cairo Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: V Rocha; C Chastang; G Souillet; R Pasquini; E Plouvier; A Nagler; F Locatelli; U Saarinen; G Cornu; F Bernaudin; E Gluckman Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Louiza Z Karagiorgou; Maria-Nikoletta P Pantazopoulou; Nikolaos C Mainas; Apostolos I Beloukas; Anastasios G Kriebardis Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Kate E Coldwell; Stephanie J Lee; Jennifer Kean; Cheen P Khoo; Grigorios Tsaknakis; Jon Smythe; Suzanne M Watt Journal: Angiogenesis Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 9.596