Prospective randomized and crossover comparison of two apheresis machines for peripheral blood stem cell collection: a multicenter study

Ikeda, Kazuhiko; Minakawa, Keiji; Muroi, Kazuo; Fujiwara, Shin-ichiro; Yamada-Fujiwara, Minami; Fujimori, Yoshihiro; Tanosaki, Ryuji; Ohto, Hitoshi

doi:10.1111/trf.13777

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A review and a more recent randomized study concluded that the Spectra Optia has comparable apheresis yields with the Spectra‐Auto, although collection efficiency was significantly higher in the Spectra Optia. Almost all the patients in our study were collected with the same apheresis system, further decreasing variation due to collection devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) pegfilgrastim (PEG) and lipegfilgrastim (LIPEG) compared with filgrastim (FIL) regarding the mobilization efficiency of CD34 + cells, graft cellular composition, and engraftment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:In this prospective nonrandomized study, 36 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma received FIL, 67 received PEG, and 16 patients received LIPEG as a cytokine after chemotherapy. We analyzed the mobilization and collection of CD34 + cells, cellular composition of blood grafts, and hematologic recovery after auto-SCT according to the type of G-CSF used. RESULTS:Patients in the LIPEG group had fewer apheresis sessions (1 vs. 2, p = 0.021 for FIL and p = 0.111 for PEG) as well as higher median blood CD34 + cell counts at the start of the first apheresis (LIPEG 74 × 10 6 /L vs. FIL 31 × 10 6 /L, p = 0.084 or PEG 27 × 10 6 /L, p = 0.021) and CD34 + yields of the first apheresis (FIL 5.1 × 10 6 /kg vs. FIL 2.3 × 10 6 /kg, p = 0.105 or PEG 1.8 × 10 6 /kg, p = 0.012). Also, the costs associated with G-CSF mobilization and apheresis were lower in the LIPEG group. The graft composition was comparable except for the higher infused CD34 + cell counts in the LIPEG group. The engraftment kinetics were significantly slower in the FIL group.CONCLUSION: LIPEG appears to be more efficient compared with PEG after chemotherapy to mobilize CD34 + cells for auto-SCT demonstrated as fewer sessions of aphereses needed as well as 2.8-fold CD34 + cell yields on the first apheresis day. Early hematologic recovery was more rapid in the LIPEG group. Thus further studies on LIPEG in the mobilization setting are warranted.A utologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT) is commonly used in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients after a relapse or as a consolidation after first-line therapy. 1,2 NHL is currently among the most common indications for auto-SCT according to the registry of the European Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. In 2016, altogether 6486 NHL patients were reported to receive auto-SCT. 3 G-CSFs are a prerequisite to mobilize adequate blood grafts to support high-dose chemotherapy. Filgrastim (FIL) ABBREVIATIONS: 7-AAD = 7-aminoactinomycin; auto-SCT = autologous stem cell transplant; FIL = filgrastim; G-CSF = granulocyte-colony stimulating factor; LIPEG = lipegfilgrastim; NHL = non-Hodgkin lymphoma; PEG = pegfilgrastim From the

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Allogeneic (allo‐) or autologous (auto‐) hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) transplantation (HSCT), which includes peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation (PBSCT), is a curative treatment for various hematologic disorders. For PBSCT, HSCs are mobilized by granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor and/or plerixafor and are collected by apheresis 1–3 . The apheresis‐collected product is cryopreserved until the time of infusion for almost all patients preparing for auto‐PBSCT and most patients waiting for allo‐PBSCT, whereas it is immediately infused without cryopreservation occasionally in allo‐PBSCT recipients 4,5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For PBSCT, HSCs are mobilized by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and/or plerixafor and are collected by apheresis. [1][2][3] The apheresis-collected product is cryopreserved until the time of infusion for almost all patients preparing for auto-PBSCT and most patients waiting for allo-PBSCT, whereas it is immediately infused without cryopreservation occasionally in allo-PBSCT recipients. 4,5 For cryopreservation, an appropriate dose of cryoprotectant is added to the PBSC product based on its volume for prevention of cellular injuries, such as intraand extracellular ice formation and cell dehydration, due to storage at temperatures below À80°C or with liquid/ vapor nitrogen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of cryoprotectants in hematopoietic cell infusion–related adverse events

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The standard cryoprotectant for human cellular products is dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which is associated with hematopoietic cell infusion‐related adverse events (HCI‐AEs) in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation including peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) transplantation (PBSCT). DMSO is often used with hydroxyethyl starch (HES), which reduces DMSO concentration while maintaining the postthaw cell recovery. The cryoprotectant medium CP‐1 (Kyokuto Pharmaceutical Industrial) is widely used in Japan. After mixture of a product with CP‐1, DMSO and HES concentrations are 5% and 6%, respectively. However, the safety profile of CP‐1 in association with HCI‐AEs has not been investigated. Study Design and Methods To compare CP‐1 with other cryoprotectants, we conducted a subgroup analysis of PBSCT recipients in a prospective surveillance study for HCI‐AEs. Moreover, we validated the toxicity of CP‐1 in 90 rats following various dose administration. Results The PBSC products cryopreserved with CP‐1 (CP‐1 group) and those with other cryoprotectants, mainly 10% DMSO (non‐CP‐1 group), were infused into 418 and 58 recipients, respectively. The rate of ≥grade 2 HCI‐AEs was higher in the CP‐1 group, but that of overall or ≥grade 3 HCI‐AEs was not significantly different, compared to the non‐CP‐1 group. Similarly, after propensity score matching, ≥grade 2 HCI‐AEs were more frequent in the CP‐1 group, but the ≥grade 3 HCI‐AE rate did not differ significantly between the groups. No significant toxicity was detected regardless of the CP‐1 dose in the 90 rats. Conclusions Infusion of a CP‐1‐containing PBSC product is feasible with the respect of HCI‐AEs.

show abstract

“…8 In recent years, few studies have evaluated the operation and differences between these two systems, in different populations and with different results. [8][9][10][11][12][13] The aim of our study is to compare the efficacy in collecting hematopoietic progenitors cells with the OPTIA compared to the COBE, focusing on procedure efficiencies and quality of products in both autologous and allogeneic donations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lopez‐Pereira

Aparicio

Andrés

et al. 2020

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Prospective randomized and crossover comparison of two apheresis machines for peripheral blood stem cell collection: a multicenter study

Abstract: The Optia is safe and more efficient in the PBSC collection compared with the Spectra-Auto.

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

Comparison of cryoprotectants in hematopoietic cell infusion–related adverse events

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Prospective randomized and crossover comparison of two apheresis machines for peripheral blood stem cell collection: a multicenter study

Abstract: The Optia is safe and more efficient in the PBSC collection compared with the Spectra-Auto.

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34+ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34+ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

Comparison of cryoprotectants in hematopoietic cell infusion–related adverse events

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients

Comparison of filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and lipegfilgrastim added to chemotherapy for mobilization of CD34⁺ cells in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma patients