Evaluation of the new continuous mononuclear cell collection protocol versus an older version on two different apheresis machines

Evaluating the efficiency and safety of large-volume leukapheresis using the Spectra Optia continuous mononuclear cell collection protocol for peripheral blood stem cell collection from healthy donors: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Large-volume leukapheresis (LVL) refers to processing of more than three volumes of blood in a single session for peripheral blood stem cell collection. Recently, continuous mononuclear cell collection (cMNC) protocol has been developed using the Spectra Optia system, which is a widely used apheresis device. LVL using the novel protocol has been investigated in patients. However, the efficiency and safety of LVL in healthy donors using this protocol has not been characterized. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of CD34+ collection of LVL with the cMNC protocol in healthy donors.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on LVL (>3 total blood volume) and normal-volume leukapheresis (NVL) performed in healthy donors between October 2019 and December 2021. All procedures were performed using the cMNC protocol.

RESULTS

Although pre-apheresis CD34+ cell count was lesser in LVL (23.5 vs. 58.0/μL, p < .001), CD34+ collection efficiency was comparable between LVL and NVL (61.2% vs. 61.4%, p = .966). Platelet loss was significantly higher in LVL compared to NVL (38.0% vs. 29.4%, p < .001), with no correlation between attrition of platelet and processing blood volume. Moreover, the incidence of citrate toxicity during procedures was comparable between the two groups (31.6% vs. 21.4%, p = .322). All LVL procedures could be completed without any adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Allogeneic LVL procedure using Spectra Optia cMNC protocol was well tolerated by the donors and resulted in efficient collection of CD34+ cells, which was comparable to that of NVL.

Retrospective comparison of two different cell separators for autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection: Single center experience

INTRODUCTION

Autologous peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation has become a standard treatment option for certain hematological malignancies. The collection of PBSCs for transplantation is a well-established process and the effectiveness can vary depending on the cell separator.  We aimed to compare the effectivity of two  devices, the Spectra Optia and the Amicus for autologous PBSC collection. We also evaluated the effect of the peripheral white blood cell (WBC) count on the CD34+ collection efficiency (CE2).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 262 apheresis procedures performed in patients between 2015 and 2021 at the Apheresis Unit of our transplantation center. The PBSCs were collected by the Spectra Optia cell separator with continuous Mononuclear Collection (cMNC) (128 procedures) or the Amicus (MNC) (134 procedures). In addition to the apheresis parameters and product characteristics, we also evaluated the effect of the pre-apheresis peripheral WBC count on the CE2.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the CD34+ CE2 between the Spectra Optia and Amicus devices (median 65.06% and 68.24%, respectively, p = 0.070). In the Amicus group, the CE2 ratio was found to be statistically significantly higher in patients with a pre-apheresis peripheral WBC count of 15 × 10⁹/L (median 81.70%, 68.06%, 61.35% and 58.13%, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While both devices collected autologous PBSC effectively and safely, the Amicus provided a higher rate of CE2 at low pre-apheresis WBC counts. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the CE2 in autologous PBSC collection devices based on pre-apheresis WBC counts.

Impact of Mobilization Strategies on Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Collection Efficiency and Product Quality: A Retrospective Single-Center Study

Autologous stem cell transplantation is routinely used in the management of several hematological diseases, solid tumors, and immune disorders. Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection performed by apheresis is the preferred source of stem cells. In this study, the potential impact of mobilization regimens on the performance of the Spectra Optia^® continuous mononuclear cell collection system was evaluated. We performed a retrospective data analysis for patients undergoing autologous PBSC collection at the Medical University Vienna, Vienna General Hospital between September 2016 and June 2018. Collections were divided into two main groups according to the mobilization regimen received: without (210 collections) or with (99 collections) plerixafor. Assessed variables included product characteristics and collection efficiency (CE). Overall, product characteristics were similar between the groups. Median CD34+ CE2 was 50.1% versus 53.0%, and CE1 was 66.9% versus 69.9% following mobilization without and with plerixafor, respectively; the difference was not statistically significant. Simple linear regression showed a very weak positive correlation between the mobilization method and CE1 or CE2 (mobilization with plerixafor increased CE2 by 4.106%). In conclusion, the Spectra Optia^® apheresis system led to high CE and a good quality of PBSC products when mobilization regimens with or without plerixafor were used.

Low hematocrit reduces the efficiency of CD34+ cell collection when using the Spectra Optia continuous mononuclear cell collection procedure

BACKGROUND

CD34⁺ cell collection efficiency (CE) is the determining factor when calculating processed blood volume (PBV) for leukapheresis (LP). However, the factors affecting CE in the continuous mononuclear cell collection (cMNC) protocol performed by the Spectra Optia apheresis system are not well established.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected the data from 147 consecutive apheresis procedures across 106 healthy donors and 27 patients completed between July 2016 and December 2020 at the Okayama University Hospital. All procedures were performed using the Optia cMNC protocol.

RESULTS

The median CD34⁺ CE2 was significantly higher in the donor samples (64.3%) than in the patient samples (46.8%) (p < .0001). WBC counts, hematocrit, and platelet counts were all significantly higher in the donors than in the patients, and there was a moderate positive correlation between CD34⁺ CE2 and hematocrit (r = .47, p < .0001), with the equation of the line being y = 1.23x + 12.23. In contrast, there was only a very weak correlation between CD34⁺ CE2 and WBC or platelet count. In addition, low hematocrit correlated with an increased time to interface formation.

CONCLUSION

These data revealed the negative impact of low hematocrit on the efficiency of CD34⁺ cell collection when using the Optia cMNC protocol and suggest that hematocrit values should also be considered when determining PBV.

Retrospective comparison between COBE SPECTRA and SPECTRA OPTIA apheresis systems for hematopoietic progenitor cells collection for autologous and allogeneic transplantation in a single center

INTRODUCTION

COBE SPECTRA [COBE] (Terumo, BCT Lakewood CO) apheresis system has been the most used device for hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) collection. Recently, it has been replaced by the SPECTRA OPTIA [OPTIA] (Terumo, BCT Lakewood CO) apheresis system. The aim of our study is to compare both methods for HPC collection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively compared 302 HPC collection apheresis procedures (115 allogeneic donors and 187 autologous). The study cohort was divided according to the apheresis system used to analyze the differences between COBE and OPTIA, specifically efficacy of apheresis procedure and product characteristics.

RESULTS

OPTIA collections result in a higher CD34⁺ collection efficiency in both groups (autologous 45.3% vs 41%, P < .006; allogeneic 54.9% vs 45%, P < .0001). The total of CD34⁺ cells ×10⁶ /kg recipient collected in the product were comparable in both groups (autologous 2.9 in OPTIA group vs 2.8 in COBE group, P = .344; allogeneic 6.2 in OPTIA group vs 5.8 in COBE group, P = .186). The percentage of platelet loss in autologous donors was significantly lower (35.7% vs 40.8%, P < .01). Regarding quality of the product, we observed a significantly lower hematocrit in products collected with OPTIA in both groups (1.8% vs 4%, P < .0001) as well as significantly lower amount of leukocytes (median 153.4 vs 237.2 × 10⁹ /L in autologous, P < .0001; 239.5 vs 340.2 × 10⁹ /L in allogeneic P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Both apheresis systems are comparable in collection of hematopoietic progenitor cells, with significantly higher collection efficiency with the OPTIA system. Collection products obtained with OPTIA contain significantly lower hematocrit and leukocytes.

An alternative test for determining autologous stem cell transplantation cell harvesting outcome: Comparison between predictive values of two tests

Daily CD34+ cells enumeration as a success indicator of stem cell pheresis procedure using flow cytometry is costly, lengthy, and labor-intensive. Thus, finding a simpler method to achieve the optimum time for harvesting the minimum required stem cells for transplantation could be helpful. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of reticulocytes fractions and their sensesivity and specificity in guiding CD34+ cell harvesting by G-CSF mobilization strategy. In this study, 49 candidates for autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation were enrolled. Before leukapheresis, the immature reticulocytes fraction (IRF) and CD34+ cell count were measured. Moreover, patients were evaluated for leukapheresis outcomes in two MNC and cMNC groups. Here we demonstrated that IRF, LFR, and MFR with the associated criterion of >17.3, ≤82.5, and >15.9, respectively, earned 100 % specificity and 47.2 %, 47.22 %, and 41.46 % sensitivity to predict the minimum required CD34+ cell count. Furthermore, IRF-V (Value) and MFR-V with the associated criterion of >0.77 and >0.55, respectively, earned 58.33 %, 66.67 % sensitivity and 84.62 %, 69.23 % of specificity, separately. As only MFR-V was able to predict the platelet engraftment (P-value = 0.014), none of the other above mentioned factors were not able to predict the neutrophil engraftment. Likewise, it was shown that patients who underwent MNC leukapheresis had a statistically significantly higher total WBC, harvested CD34⁺ cells, MNCs/ kg, and lower apheresis durations (P-values<0.05). Taken together, using IRF and its maturity stages seems to be a compelling predictor of minimal required CD34+ cells in autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation.

Validation of simple prediction algorithms to consistently achieve CD3+ and postselection CD34+ targets with leukapheresis

BACKGROUND

Cellular therapies using engineered T cells, haploidentical transplants, and autologous gene therapy are increasing. Specified CD3+ or high CD34+ doses are typically required for subsequent manufacturing, manipulation, or CD34+ selection. Simple, practical, and reliable lymphocyte and hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) collection algorithms accounting for subsequent CD34+ selection have not been published.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this analysis of 15 haploidentical donors undergoing tandem lymphocyte and HPC collections, we validated one-step, practical prediction algorithms (Appendix S1, available as supporting information in the online version of this paper) that use conservative facility-specific collection efficiencies, CD34+ selection efficiency, and donor-specific peripheral counts to reliably achieve the target CD3+ and CD34+ product doses. These algorithms expand on our previously published work regarding predictive HPC collection algorithms.

RESULTS

Ninety-three percent of lymphocyte and 93% of CD34+ collections achieved the final target CD3+ and CD34+ product dose when our algorithm-calculated process volumes were used. Linear regression analysis of our algorithms for CD3+, preselection CD34+, and postselection CD34+ showed statistically significant models with R² of 0.80 (root mean square error [RMSE], 31.3), 0.72 (RMSE, 385.7), and 0.56 (RMSE, 326.0), respectively, all with p values less than 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Because achievement of CD3+ or CD34+ dose targets may be critical for safety and efficacy of cell therapies, these simple, practical, and reliable prediction algorithms for lymphocyte and HPC collections should be very useful for collection facilities.

Mobilization and collection of cells in the hematologic compartment for cellular therapies: Stem cell collection with G-CSF/plerixafor, collecting lymphocytes/monocytes

An essential and influential first step in all cellular therapies is collecting donor or patient cells. In hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation, autologous or allogeneic hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) are collected from either the bone marrow or the peripheral blood. Peripheral blood collection by apheresis requires mobilization with chemotherapy, granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), plerixafor, or a combination. The modalities of mobilization and collection each carry a unique set of risks and benefits for both the donor and the recipient. In other types of cell therapy, most notably chimeric antigen receptor T cells, lymphocytes or monocytes are collected from the peripheral blood. The risks of collecting these cells by apheresis are similar to HPCs, but less is known about the composition, timing and qualitative cell characteristics which contribute to an optimal collection. Here, we review the mobilization and collection of HPCs and the collection of lymphocytes and monocytes. Donor safety is of primary importance when collecting material for any type of cell therapy. Every aspect of mobilization and collection can be studied and potentially optimized to improve patient outcomes.