BACKGROUND: Over the last 2 decades, cord blood (CB) has become an important source of blood stem cells. Clinical experience has shown that CB is a viable source for blood stem cells in the field of unrelated hematopoietic blood stem cell transplantation. METHODS: Studies of CB units (CBUs) stored and ordered from the US (National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and Swiss (Swiss Blood Stem Cells (SBSQ)) CB registries were conducted to assess whether these CBUs met the needs of transplantation patients, as evidenced by units being selected for transplantation. These data were compared to international banking and selection data (Bone Marrow Donors Worldwide (BMDW), World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA)). Further analysis was conducted on whether current CB banking practices were economically viable given the units being selected from the registries for transplant. It should be mentioned that our analysis focused on usage, deliberately omitting any information about clinical outcomes of CB transplantation. RESULTS: A disproportionate number of units with high total nucleated cell (TNC) counts are selected, compared to the distribution of units by TNC available. Therefore, the decision to use a low threshold for banking purposes cannot be supported by economic analysis and may limit the economic viability of future public CB banking. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest significantly raising the TNC level used to determine a bankable unit. A level of 125 × 10(7) TNCs, maybe even 150 × 10(7) TNCs, might be a viable banking threshold. This would improve the return on inventory investments while meeting transplantation needs based on current selection criteria.
BACKGROUND: Over the last 2 decades, cord blood (CB) has become an important source of blood stem cells. Clinical experience has shown that CB is a viable source for blood stem cells in the field of unrelated hematopoietic blood stem cell transplantation. METHODS: Studies of CB units (CBUs) stored and ordered from the US (National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and Swiss (Swiss Blood Stem Cells (SBSQ)) CB registries were conducted to assess whether these CBUs met the needs of transplantation patients, as evidenced by units being selected for transplantation. These data were compared to international banking and selection data (Bone Marrow Donors Worldwide (BMDW), World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA)). Further analysis was conducted on whether current CB banking practices were economically viable given the units being selected from the registries for transplant. It should be mentioned that our analysis focused on usage, deliberately omitting any information about clinical outcomes of CB transplantation. RESULTS: A disproportionate number of units with high total nucleated cell (TNC) counts are selected, compared to the distribution of units by TNC available. Therefore, the decision to use a low threshold for banking purposes cannot be supported by economic analysis and may limit the economic viability of future public CB banking. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest significantly raising the TNC level used to determine a bankable unit. A level of 125 × 10(7) TNCs, maybe even 150 × 10(7) TNCs, might be a viable banking threshold. This would improve the return on inventory investments while meeting transplantation needs based on current selection criteria.
Authors: Kenneth Cornetta; Mary Laughlin; Shelly Carter; Donna Wall; Joel Weinthal; Colleen Delaney; John Wagner; Robert Sweetman; Philip McCarthy; Nelson Chao Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: P Rubinstein; L Dobrila; R E Rosenfield; J W Adamson; G Migliaccio; A R Migliaccio; P E Taylor; C E Stevens Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1995-10-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Navneet S Majhail; Jaya M Mothukuri; Margaret L Macmillan; Michael R Verneris; Paul J Orchard; John E Wagner; Daniel J Weisdorf Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: John E Wagner; Mary Eapen; Shelly Carter; Yanli Wang; Kirk R Schultz; Donna A Wall; Nancy Bunin; Colleen Delaney; Paul Haut; David Margolis; Edward Peres; Michael R Verneris; Mark Walters; Mary M Horowitz; Joanne Kurtzberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kristin M Page; Adam Mendizabal; Brigid Betz-Stablein; Stephen Wease; Kevin Shoulars; Tracy Gentry; Vinod K Prasad; Jessica Sun; Shelly Carter; Andrew E Balber; Joanne Kurtzberg Journal: Transfusion Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: John Patterson; Cally H Moore; Emily Palser; Jason C Hearn; Daniela Dumitru; Holli A Harper; Ivan N Rich Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Jeremy Magalon; Martin Maiers; Joanne Kurtzberg; Cristina Navarrete; Pablo Rubinstein; Colin Brown; Catherine Schramm; Jérome Larghero; Sandrine Katsahian; Christian Chabannon; Christophe Picard; Alexander Platz; Alexander Schmidt; Gregory Katz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240