BACKGROUND: Cryopreservation is often used to store cellular therapies, but little is known about how well CD3+ or CD34+ cells tolerate this process. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Viable CD34+ cell recoveries were analyzed from related and unrelated donor granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) products and viable CD3+ cell recoveries from G-CSF-mobilized and nonmobilized apheresis products from related and unrelated donors. All products were cryopreserved with 5% dimethyl sulfoxide and 6% pentastarch using a controlled-rate freezer and were stored in liquid nitrogen. Related donor products were cryopreserved immediately after collection and unrelated donor products greater than 12 hours postcollection. RESULTS: The postthaw recovery of CD34+ cells from related donor PBSCs was high (n = 86; 97.5 ± 23.1%) and there was no difference in postthaw CD34+ cell recovery from unrelated donor PBSCs (n = 14; 98.8 ± 37.2%; p = 0.863). In related donor lymphocyte products the postthaw CD3+ cell recovery (n = 48; 90.7 ± 21.4%) was greater than that of unrelated donor products (n = 14; 66.6 ± 35.8%; p = 0.00251). All unrelated donor lymphocyte products were from G-CSF-mobilized products, while most related donor lymphocyte products were from nonmobilized products. A comparison of the CD3+ cell recovery from related donor G-CSF-mobilized products (n = 19; 85.0 ± 29.2%) with that of unrelated donor products found no significant difference (p = 0.137). CONCLUSIONS: The postthaw recovery of CD34+ cells was high in both related and unrelated donor products, but the recovery of CD3+ cells in unrelated donor G-CSF-mobilized products was lower. G-CSF-mobilized unrelated donor products may contain fewer CD3+ cells than non-G-CSF-exposed products upon thaw and, when indicated, cell doses should be monitored. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Cryopreservation is often used to store cellular therapies, but little is known about how well CD3+ or CD34+ cells tolerate this process. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Viable CD34+ cell recoveries were analyzed from related and unrelated donorgranulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-mobilized peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) products and viable CD3+ cell recoveries from G-CSF-mobilized and nonmobilized apheresis products from related and unrelated donors. All products were cryopreserved with 5% dimethyl sulfoxide and 6% pentastarch using a controlled-rate freezer and were stored in liquid nitrogen. Related donor products were cryopreserved immediately after collection and unrelated donor products greater than 12 hours postcollection. RESULTS: The postthaw recovery of CD34+ cells from related donor PBSCs was high (n = 86; 97.5 ± 23.1%) and there was no difference in postthaw CD34+ cell recovery from unrelated donor PBSCs (n = 14; 98.8 ± 37.2%; p = 0.863). In related donor lymphocyte products the postthaw CD3+ cell recovery (n = 48; 90.7 ± 21.4%) was greater than that of unrelated donor products (n = 14; 66.6 ± 35.8%; p = 0.00251). All unrelated donor lymphocyte products were from G-CSF-mobilized products, while most related donor lymphocyte products were from nonmobilized products. A comparison of the CD3+ cell recovery from related donorG-CSF-mobilized products (n = 19; 85.0 ± 29.2%) with that of unrelated donor products found no significant difference (p = 0.137). CONCLUSIONS: The postthaw recovery of CD34+ cells was high in both related and unrelated donor products, but the recovery of CD3+ cells in unrelated donorG-CSF-mobilized products was lower. G-CSF-mobilized unrelated donor products may contain fewer CD3+ cells than non-G-CSF-exposed products upon thaw and, when indicated, cell doses should be monitored. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: A Galmés; J Besalduch; J Bargay; N Matamoros; M A Durán; M Morey; F Alvarez; M Mascaró Journal: Transfusion Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Sandhya R Panch; Sandeep K Srivastava; Nasha Elavia; Andrew McManus; Shutong Liu; Ping Jin; Steven L Highfill; Xiaobai Li; Pradeep Dagur; James N Kochenderfer; Terry J Fry; Crystal L Mackall; Daniel Lee; Nirali N Shah; David F Stroncek Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: Reuben P Jacob; Jessica Flynn; Sean M Devlin; Molly Maloy; Sergio A Giralt; Peter Maslak; Richard J O'Reilly; Jo-Ann Tonon; Miguel Angel Perales; Scott T Avecilla; Christina Cho Journal: Transplant Cell Ther Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: B Mfarrej; C Lemarié; A Granata; T Pagliardini; C Malenfant; P Lignée; M Fays; D Blaise; C Chabannon; B Calmels Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 5.174
Authors: Katie Maurer; Haesook T Kim; Thomas M Kuczmarski; Heather M Garrity; Augustine Weber; Carol G Reynolds; Deborah Liney; Corey Cutler; Joseph H Antin; John Koreth; Jerome Ritz; Roman M Shapiro; Rizwan Romee; Catherine J Wu; Robert J Soiffer; Sarah Nikiforow; Vincent T Ho; Mahasweta Gooptu Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-12-14