BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cryopreservation of hemopoietic progenitors for transplantation has been traditionally performed by the use of a controlled-rate freezer. Several groups have reported successful cryopreservation of progenitor cells at -80 degrees C without a controlled-rate freezer. In an attempt to elucidate whether both methods are equally efficient, we compared controlled-rate versus uncontrolled cryopreservation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in a prospective, multicenter study. DESIGN AND METHODS: Apheresis products from patients undergoing PBPC mobilization were split into two aliquots, and cryopreserved simultaneously by both methods, in autologous plasma plus 10% dimethylsulfoxide. Controlled-rate samples were placed into a programmable freezer with a cooling rate of 1-2 degrees C/min. Uncontrolled-rate samples were directly introduced into a -80 degrees C mechanical freezer. After thawing, cell counts, assays for viability, clonogenic cultures and CD34+ cell enumeration were performed. RESULTS: A total of 105 cases were included. No significant differences were found in viability (mean 88.8 +/- 13% in the controlled-rate group vs. 89.7 +/- 12% in the uncontrolled-rate group), nucleated cell loss (23.5 +/- 23% vs. 23 +/- 22%), mononuclear cell loss (19 +/- 23% vs. 19.1 +/- 22%), and loss of CD34+ cells (34.3 +/- 33% vs. 28.6 +/- 34%). On the other hand, recovery of granulomonocytic colony-forming units (CFU-GM), was significantly better with the controlled-rate technique, than with the non-controlled-rate method (104.3 +/- 95 vs. 86.5 +/- 80, respectively; p = 0.048). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that both techniques are suitable for cryopreservation of PBPC, although a better recovery of committed progenitors is achieved by the controlled-rate method. Therefore, the use of controlled-rate freezer should probably be recommended.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cryopreservation of hemopoietic progenitors for transplantation has been traditionally performed by the use of a controlled-rate freezer. Several groups have reported successful cryopreservation of progenitor cells at -80 degrees C without a controlled-rate freezer. In an attempt to elucidate whether both methods are equally efficient, we compared controlled-rate versus uncontrolled cryopreservation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in a prospective, multicenter study. DESIGN AND METHODS: Apheresis products from patients undergoing PBPC mobilization were split into two aliquots, and cryopreserved simultaneously by both methods, in autologous plasma plus 10% dimethylsulfoxide. Controlled-rate samples were placed into a programmable freezer with a cooling rate of 1-2 degrees C/min. Uncontrolled-rate samples were directly introduced into a -80 degrees C mechanical freezer. After thawing, cell counts, assays for viability, clonogenic cultures and CD34+ cell enumeration were performed. RESULTS: A total of 105 cases were included. No significant differences were found in viability (mean 88.8 +/- 13% in the controlled-rate group vs. 89.7 +/- 12% in the uncontrolled-rate group), nucleated cell loss (23.5 +/- 23% vs. 23 +/- 22%), mononuclear cell loss (19 +/- 23% vs. 19.1 +/- 22%), and loss of CD34+ cells (34.3 +/- 33% vs. 28.6 +/- 34%). On the other hand, recovery of granulomonocytic colony-forming units (CFU-GM), was significantly better with the controlled-rate technique, than with the non-controlled-rate method (104.3 +/- 95 vs. 86.5 +/- 80, respectively; p = 0.048). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that both techniques are suitable for cryopreservation of PBPC, although a better recovery of committed progenitors is achieved by the controlled-rate method. Therefore, the use of controlled-rate freezer should probably be recommended.
Authors: G Detry; L Calvet; N Straetmans; A Cabrespine; C Ravoet; J O Bay; H Petre; C Paillard; B Husson; E Merlin; L Boon-Falleur; O Tournilhac; A Delannoy; P Halle Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Kathryn A Murray; Nina L H Kinney; Christopher A Griffiths; Muhammad Hasan; Matthew I Gibson; Thomas F Whale Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Raghavan Chinnadurai; Ian B Copland; Marco A Garcia; Christopher T Petersen; Christopher N Lewis; Edmund K Waller; Allan D Kirk; Jacques Galipeau Journal: Stem Cells Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 6.277
Authors: Timo Buhl; Tobias J Legler; Albert Rosenberger; Anke Schardt; Michael P Schön; Holger A Haenssle Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Olga Margareth Wanderley de Oliveira Félix; Gisela Tunes; Valéria Cortez Ginani; Paulo César Simões; Daniele Porto Barros; Elizabete Delbuono; Maria Teresa de Seixas Alves; Antonio Sérgio Petrilli; Maria Lúcia de Martino Lee; Roseane Vasconcelos Gouveia; Victor Gottardello Zecchin; Adriana Seber Journal: Hematol Transfus Cell Ther Date: 2018-03-24