How do I perform hematopoietic progenitor cell selection?

Graft-versus-host disease remains the most important source of morbidity and mortality associated with allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The implementation of hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) selection is employed by some stem cell processing facilities to mitigate this complication. Current cell selection methods include reducing the number of unwanted T cells (negative selection) and/or enriching CD34+ hematopoietic stem/progenitors (positive selection) using immunomagnetic beads subjected to magnetic fields within columns to separate out targeted cells. Unwanted side effects of cell selection as a result of T-cell reduction are primary graft failure, increased infection rates, delayed immune reconstitution, possible disease relapse, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. The Miltenyi CliniMACS cell isolation system is the only device currently approved for clinical use by the Food and Drug Administration. It uses magnetic microbeads conjugated with a high-affinity anti-CD34 monoclonal antibody capable of binding to HPCs in marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord blood products. The system results in significantly improved CD34+ cell recoveries (50%-100%) and consistent 3-log CD3+ T-cell reductions compared to previous generations of CD34+ cell selection procedures. In this article, the CliniMACS procedure is described in greater detail and the authors provide useful insight into modifications of the system. Successful implementation of cell selection procedures can have a significant positive clinical effect by greatly increasing the pool of donors for recipients requiring transplants. However, before a program implements cell selection techniques, it is important to consider the time and financial resources required to properly and safely perform these procedures.

Comparison of manual hematocrit determinations versus automated methods for hematopoietic progenitor cell apheresis products.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell donor selection is based primarily on human leukocyte antigen degree of match and it often occurs without regard to the red blood cell (RBC) compatibility between donor and recipient. When major ABO-mismatched grafts are infused, it is imperative that an accurate determination of the incompatible RBC content is made to ensure that the product is safe for infusion. RBC content determination requires the hematocrit (Hct) parameter which can be obtained via manual (directly measured) or automated (calculated) methods. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-seven apheresis hematopoietic progenitor grafts were assessed for Hct by manual testing and by four commercially available automated hematology analyzer instruments. A clinical model was developed to assess the frequency of unnecessary RBC reductions or alteration in standard infusion practice. RESULTS: Significant (p < 0.001) differences were observed where the manual Hct value was markedly lower than automated Hct values. At stringent incompatible RBC threshold of 10 mL, the number of preventable RBC reduction procedures ranged from 18% to 69%. CONCLUSION: Accurate determination of RBC content of hematopoietic progenitor grafts is essential for patient safety. Despite the rapidity and convenience offered by automated Hct methods, they significantly overestimate the incompatible RBC content of grafts, which may trigger unnecessary RBC reduction procedures or split infusions. In products where automated Hct methods indicate excessive amounts of incompatible RBCs are present, we advise the performance of confirmatory testing with a manual Hct method to ensure that the automated Hct value is not a false positive.

Universal Engraftment after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Using Cryopreserved CD34-Selected Grafts.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, most centers performing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) have switched to the use of cryopreserved grafts. Previous investigators have suggested that cryopreserved allografts may heighten risk of nonengraftment. To date, no study has investigated the effect of cryopreservation of CD34-selected hematopoietic progenitor cells (CD34+ HPCs) used as the sole graft source. In this study, we sought to evaluate outcomes after unrelated donor or matched sibling allo-HCT with cryopreserved CD34+ HPCs. This was a single-center analysis of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who underwent allo-HCT with cryopreserved CD34-selected allo-HCT grafts between January 2010 and June 2017. All patients received ablative conditioning and antirejection prophylaxis with rabbit antithymocyte globulin. G-CSF-mobilized leukapheresis products underwent CD34 selection using the CliniMACS Reagent System. Cells were then cryopreserved in DMSO (final concentration 7.5%) to -90 °C using a controlled-rate freezing system before being transferred to vapor-phase liquid nitrogen storage. In internal validation, this method has shown 92% mean CD34+ cell viability and 99.7% mean CD34+ cell recovery. Engraftment was defined as the first of 3 consecutive days of an absolute neutrophil count of ≥0.5. Platelet recovery was recorded as the first of 7 consecutive days with a platelet count ≥20 K/µL without transfusion. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS), and cumulative incidence functions were used to estimate rates of relapse, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). A total of 64 patients received a cryopreserved CD34-selected graft. The median CD34+ cell count before cryopreservation was 6.6 × 106/kg (range, 1.4 to 16.1 × 106/kg), and the median CD3+ cell count was 2.0 × 103/kg (range, 0 to 21.1 × 106/kg). All patients were engrafted, at a median of 11 days post-HCT (range, 8 to 14 days). One patient had poor graft function in the setting of cytomegalovirus viremia, necessitating a CD34-selected boost on day +57. The median time to platelet recovery was 16 days (range, 13 to 99 days). The estimated 2-year OS was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58% to 83%) with cryopreserved grafts versus 62% (95% CI, 57% to 67%) with fresh grafts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.35; P = .5). The estimated 2-year RFS in the 2 groups was 59% (95% CI, 48% to 74%) versus 56% (95% CI, 51% to 61%; HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.51; P > .9). The cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years was 29% (95% CI, 17% to 41%) versus 23% (95% CI, 19% to 27%; P = .16), and the cumulative incidence of NRM at 2 years was 17% (95% CI, 9% to 28%) versus 23% (95% CI, 19% to 28%; P = .24). The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD by day +100 was 16% with cryopreserved grafts (95% CI, 8% to 26%) and 16% (95% CI, 13% to 20%; P = .97) with fresh grafts. Moderate to severe chronic GVHD by day +365 occurred in only 1 recipient of a cryopreserved graft (2%). Our data show that in patients with hematologic malignancies who received cryopreserved allogeneic CD34+ HPCs, engraftment, GVHD, and survival outcomes were consistent with those seen in recipients of fresh allogeneic CD34+ HPC grafts at our center. Our laboratory validation and clinical experience demonstrate the safety of our cryopreservation procedure for CD34-selected allografts.

Method comparison study of peripheral blood CD34+ count performed on an Abbott CELL-DYN Sapphire hematology analyzer versus flow cytometry reference procedure (modified ISHAGE).

INTRODUCTION: CD34+ cell enumeration is a critical parameter used to determine the timing of apheresis collections of hematopoietic progenitor cell products (HPC(A)). Automated hematology analyzers equipped with flow cytometry capabilities may be a solution to the problem of limited access to standard flow cytometry testing. METHODS: We compared CD34+ cell enumeration using a reference flow cytometry procedure employing modified International Society of Hematotherapy and Graft Engineering (ISHAGE) analysis with a hematology analyzer /flow cytometer hybrid (CELL DYN (CD)Sapphire) using a sequential gating analysis designed to emulate the ISHAGE gating strategy. RESULTS: CD34+ cell values obtained from the ISHAGE and CD Sapphire analysis were plotted and compared in a linear regression analysis which showed a high degree of correlation (R2=0.96). No statistically significant (p=0.53) differences in CD34+ cell enumeration values were observed between the flow cytometer and automated hematology analyzer using manual analysis schema. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that an automated hematology analyzer equipped with a flow module can provide CD34+ cell enumeration results in the peripheral blood for clinical decision algorithms without the need for a dedicated flow cytometry laboratory.