Advertisement

Concepts and Rationale for Using Predictive Algorithms for Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Apheresis Collection

  • Michele Cottler-FoxEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances and Controversies in Hematopoietic Transplantation and Cell Therapy book series (ACHTCT)

Abstract

Predictive algorithms for hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) collection are useful tools to increase efficiency of the collection, of the workflow in both the collection center and processing laboratory, and to facilitate concurrent quality assurance. Once established within a center, their use can also decrease costs by decreasing the number of days of growth factor used for mobilization and by decreasing the number of collection days or length of a collection, leading to a decrease in number of blood products transfused during collection since platelet loss can be minimized. Many approaches to predictive algorithms have been tried, and this chapter presents an overview of their history as well as a useful general strategy for current practice.

Keywords

HPC collection Predictive algorithms Apheresis Quality assurance 

References

  1. Abuabdou A, Rosenbaum E, Usmani S et al (2014) Analysis of CD34+ cell collection using two mobilization regimens for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients reveals the separate impact of mobilization and collection variables. J Clin Aph 29:251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbona C, Prosper F, Benet I et al (1998) Comparison between once a day vs twice a day G-CSF fir mobilization of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) in normal donors for allogeneic PBPC transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 22:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolan C, Carter C, Wesley R et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of cell kinetics, yields and donor experiences during a single large-volume apheresis versus two smaller volume consecutive day collections of allogeneic peripheral blood stem cells. Br J Haematol 120:801–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Civin C, Straiss L, Brovall C et al (1984) Antigenic analysis of hematopoiesis. III. A hematopoietic progenitor cell surface antigen defined by a monoclonal antibody raised against KG-1a cells. J Immunol 133(1):157–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa L, Alexander E, Hogan K et al (2011a) Development and validation of a decision-making algorithm to guide the use of plerixafor for autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa L, Miller A, Alexander E et al (2011b) Growth factor and patient adapted use of plerixafor is superior to CY and growth factor for autologous hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Bone Marrow Transplant 46:523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cottler-Fox M, Lapidot T, Petit I et al (2003) Stem Cell Mobilization. Blood:419–437Google Scholar
  8. Cousins A, Sinclair J, Alcorn M et al (2015) HPC-A dose prediction on the Optia cell separator based on a benchmark CE2 collection efficiency: promoting clinical efficiency, minimizing toxicity, and allowing quality control. J Clin Apheresis 30:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas K (2012) Experience with apheresis procedures after plerixafor mobilization. How much blood to process? Dose prediction on the basis of peripheral CD34+ counts. In: Fruehauf S, Zeller WJ, Calandra G (eds) Novel developments in stem cell mobilization. Springer, New York, pp 133–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas K (2016) Algorithms to predict CD34+ cell collection with the new generation of cell separator machines. Transfus Med 26(S2):3–24Google Scholar
  11. Foley C, Mackey M (2009) Mathematical model for G-CSF administration after chemotherapy. J Theoretical Biol 257:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford C, Chan K, Reilly W, Petterson F (2003) An evaluation of predictive factors for CD34+ cell harvest yields from patients mobilized with chemotherapy and growth factors. Transfusion 43:622–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gianni A, Bregni M, Stern A et al (1989) Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to harvest circulating haematopoietic stem cells for autotransplantation. Lancet 334(8663):580–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hosing C, Saliba R, Hamerschlak N et al (2014) Peripheral blood stem cell yield calculated using preapheresis absolute CD34+ cell count, peripheral blood volume processed, and donor body weight accurately predicts actual yield at multiple centers. Transfusion 54:1081–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kroger N, Renges H, Kruger W et al (2000) A randomized comparison of once versus twice daily recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (filgrastim) for stem cell mobilization in healthy donors for allogeneic transplantation. Br J Haematol 111(3):761–765PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kroger N, Sonnenberg S, Cortes-Dericks L et al (2004) Kinetics of G-CSF and CD34+ cell mobilization after once or twice daily stimulation with rHu granulocyte-stimulating factor (lenograstim) in healthy volunteers: an intraindividual crossover study. Transfusion 44(1):104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee V, Li C, Chik K et al (2000) Single vs twice daily G-CSF for peripheral blood stem cells harvest in normal donors and children with non-malignant disease. Bone Marrow Transplant 25:931–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lisenko K, Pavel P, Brukner T et al (2016) Comparison between intermittent and continuous spectra Optia leukapheresis systems for autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection. J Clin Apher 32(1):27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meisenberg B, Brehm T, Schmeckel A, Miller W, McMillan R (1998) A combination of low-dose cyclophosphamide plus colony stimulating factors is more cost-effective than granulocyte-colony stimulating factor alone to mobilize peripheral blood stem cells. Transfusion 38:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohle R, Murea S, Pforsich M et al (1996) Estimation of the progenitor cell yield in a leukapheresis product by previous measurement of CD34+ cells in the peripheral blood. Vox Sang 71:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morris C, Siegel E, Barlogie B et al (2003) Mobilization of CD34+ cells in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: influence of age, prior therapy, platelet count and mobilization regimen. Br J Haematol 120(3):413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nervi B, Link D, DiPersio J (2006) Cytokines and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. J Cell Biochem 99:690–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters W, Rosner G, Ross M et al (1993) Comparative effects of G-CFS and GM-CSF on priming peripheral blood progenitor cells for use with autologous bone marrow after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood 81:1709–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pierelli L, Marasca M, Piccirillo N et al (2006) Accurate prediction of autologous stem cell apheresis yields using a double variable-dependent method assures systematic efficiency control of continuous flow collection procedures. Vox Sang 91(2):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prince H, Imrie K, Sutherland R et al (1996) Peripheral blood progenitor cell collections in multiple myeloma: predictors and management of inadequate collections. Br J Haematol 93:142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenbaum E, O’Connell B, Cottler-Fox M (2012) Validation of a formula for predicting daily CD34+ cell collection by leukapheresis. Cytotherapy 14:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sandhya R, Yu Y, Kang E et al (2015) Mobilization characteristics and strategies to improve hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization and collection in patients with chronic granulomatous disease and severe combined immunodeficiency. Transfusion 55(2):265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutherland D, Anderson L, Keeney M et al (1996) The ISHAGE guidelines for CD34+ cell determination by flow cytometry. J Hematother 5(3):213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. To L, Haylock D, Kimber R, Juttner C (1984) High levels of circulating haemopoietic stem cells in very early remission from acute non-lymphoblastic leukaemia and their collection and cryopreservation. Br J Haematol 58:399–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wuchter P, Hundemar M, Schmitt A et al (2017) Performance assessment and benchmarking of autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection with two different apheresis devices. Transfus Med 27(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations