Cryopreservation was recommended to ensure continuity of unrelated donor (UD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) during COVID-19 pandemic. However, its impact on clinical outcomes and feasibility was not well known. We compared 32 patients who underwent UD HSCT using cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) during the COVID-19 pandemic with 32 patients who underwent UD HSCT using fresh PBSC in the previous period. Median neutrophil engraftment was 17.5 and 17.0 days with cryopreserved and fresh grafts, respectively. Non-significant delays were found in platelet recovery days (25.5 versus 19.0; P = 0.192) and full donor chimerism days (35.0 and 31.5; P = 0.872) using cryopreserved PBSC. The rate of acute graft-versus-host disease at 100 days was 41% (95% CI [21–55%]) in cryopreserved group versus 31% (95% CI [13–46%]) in fresh group ( P = 0.380). One-hundred days progression-relapse free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly. During COVID-19 pandemic, six frozen UD donations were not transfused and logistical and clinical issues regarding cryopreservation procedure, packaging, and transporting appeared. In summary, UD HSCT with cryopreserved PBSC was safe during this challenging time. More efforts are needed to ensure that all frozen grafts are transplanted and cryopreservation requirements are harmonized.

Progenitor cell viability and function are preserved with this dry-thawing system. The time to hematopoietic engraftment of patients after transplantation is comparable to those infused with progenitor cells thawed with the water bath technique. Thawing cell products without the use of water and in a dry environment might favor the use of this dry method.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and ObjectivesBone marrow (BM) harvesting is one of the essential sources of stem cells for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In 2019, commercial BM collection kits became unavailable in Europe. Consequently, we created an in‐house BM collection kit as an alternative.Materials and MethodsWe compared two groups of BM collections. The first collections were taken using an in‐house kit from June 2022 through February 2023 and the second with a commercial kit from February 2021 through May 2022. These all took place at seven collection centres (CC). We analysed the harvest quality (cell blood count, CD34+ cells, viability, potency and sterility), the incidents occurring with each kit and the time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment in recipients.ResultsA total of 23 donors underwent BM harvesting with the in‐house kit and 23 with the commercial one. Both cohorts were comparable regarding donor characteristics, CC and time to procedure. No statistical differences were found in harvest quality between the in‐house and commercial kits. A new transfusion set was required in three BM harvests (13%) with the in‐house kit because of filter clogging. The median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 21 days for both cohorts and 29 days (in‐house) and 33 days (commercial), p = 0.284, respectively.ConclusionThe in‐house BM collection kit offers a real approach to solve the diminished supply of commercial kits. A higher risk of filter clogging was observed compared with commercial kits due to the lack of 850 and 500 μm filters.