Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry: Is there an effect on clinical outcome?

S. J. Noga, B. Myers, S. C. Miller, K. A. Loper, S. Meusel, I. Flinn, Georgia Boyce Vogelsang, P. V. O'Donnell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We have shown (hat the absolute peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count generated using the IMAGN 2000® microvolume fluorimeter(MVF; 50nl sample size, 45 min tunaround) and the STELLer® CD34 assay correlates with the CD34+ cell dose/kg through rat the apheresis procedure. Thus, use of a PB CD34 algorithm can determine the optirial collection day and/or duration. Several groups have established standardized flow cytometry methods for CD34 enumeration. Both methods were used to assess the algorithm-genera ed final PBSC products of 42 hématologie malignancy patients [indolent lymphoma (FND):n = 19, sensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease (SEN):n =12, multi )le myeloma (MM):n= 11]. All were enrolled on a critical pathway for PBSC mobilizat on which included priming with cyclophosphamide (CY, 2.5 g/m2) and G-CSF (10 meg/kg). The algorithm-set collection time uses 4-5×106 CD34+ cells/kg as the optimal target yit d. Patients (n=38) with sufficient collection kinetics were harvested within 1 apheresis procedure. The mean (95% CI) CD34 percentage for all grafts was 1.2% (0.7) for MVF and 1.8 %(1.1 ) for flow (Sutherland method) with the final product containing 8.8x 106(E .0) and 14.1×106(9.7) CD34+ cells/kg (p0.04, t test), respectively. Review of the 3 diseise cohorts showed differences in collection kinetics, but there were no(by t t;st analysis)significant differences found between methods of CD34 enumeration. Since CC 34 dose and platelet engraftment are strongly correlated, a 4th cohort (n=8; patients requir ng 15 days to achieve a platelet count 50,000/ul) was also analyzed. Although not significant (p=0.09), the harvest would be considered low optimal by MVF but quite adequate by flow. In conclusion, MVF is a valuable point of care methodology for graft assessm ;nt given its fast turn around time and minimal technical skill level. The availability of commercial CD34 controls will allow closer correlation of the 2 methods, especi: lly within an institution. Cohort Microvolume Fluorimetry Flow Cytometry Gran 500 Plat 50lt %CD34 CD34/kg (xlO6) % CD34 CD34/kg (×106) Day: Day: MM 1.6 11.2 2.2 17.5 9 12 SEN 0.8 5.6 1.3 10.7 10 13 ND 1.9 10.9 3.3 19.6 11 13 Plat d 15 0.4 4.1 0.7 7.3 11 18 All values represent the mean determination for each cohort.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBlood
Volume96
Issue number11 PART I
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Fluorometry
Blood Component Removal
Flow cytometry
Flow Cytometry
Platelets
Grafts
Blood
Fluorometers
Turnaround time
Kinetics
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor
Cyclophosphamide
Rats
Assays
Availability
Point-of-Care Systems
Transplants
Critical Pathways
Hodgkin Disease
Platelet Count

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology

Cite this

Noga, S. J., Myers, B., Miller, S. C., Loper, K. A., Meusel, S., Flinn, I., ... O'Donnell, P. V. (2000). Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry: Is there an effect on clinical outcome? Blood, 96(11 PART I).

Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry : Is there an effect on clinical outcome? / Noga, S. J.; Myers, B.; Miller, S. C.; Loper, K. A.; Meusel, S.; Flinn, I.; Vogelsang, Georgia Boyce; O'Donnell, P. V.

In: Blood, Vol. 96, No. 11 PART I, 2000.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Noga, SJ, Myers, B, Miller, SC, Loper, KA, Meusel, S, Flinn, I, Vogelsang, GB & O'Donnell, PV 2000, 'Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry: Is there an effect on clinical outcome?', Blood, vol. 96, no. 11 PART I.
Noga, S. J. ; Myers, B. ; Miller, S. C. ; Loper, K. A. ; Meusel, S. ; Flinn, I. ; Vogelsang, Georgia Boyce ; O'Donnell, P. V. / Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry : Is there an effect on clinical outcome?. In: Blood. 2000 ; Vol. 96, No. 11 PART I.
@article{59fdbe0e257a498d9b39e5dfe9b54279,
title = "Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry: Is there an effect on clinical outcome?",
abstract = "We have shown (hat the absolute peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count generated using the IMAGN 2000{\circledR} microvolume fluorimeter(MVF; 50nl sample size, 45 min tunaround) and the STELLer{\circledR} CD34 assay correlates with the CD34+ cell dose/kg through rat the apheresis procedure. Thus, use of a PB CD34 algorithm can determine the optirial collection day and/or duration. Several groups have established standardized flow cytometry methods for CD34 enumeration. Both methods were used to assess the algorithm-genera ed final PBSC products of 42 h{\'e}matologie malignancy patients [indolent lymphoma (FND):n = 19, sensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease (SEN):n =12, multi )le myeloma (MM):n= 11]. All were enrolled on a critical pathway for PBSC mobilizat on which included priming with cyclophosphamide (CY, 2.5 g/m2) and G-CSF (10 meg/kg). The algorithm-set collection time uses 4-5×106 CD34+ cells/kg as the optimal target yit d. Patients (n=38) with sufficient collection kinetics were harvested within 1 apheresis procedure. The mean (95{\%} CI) CD34 percentage for all grafts was 1.2{\%} (0.7) for MVF and 1.8 {\%}(1.1 ) for flow (Sutherland method) with the final product containing 8.8x 106(E .0) and 14.1×106(9.7) CD34+ cells/kg (p0.04, t test), respectively. Review of the 3 diseise cohorts showed differences in collection kinetics, but there were no(by t t;st analysis)significant differences found between methods of CD34 enumeration. Since CC 34 dose and platelet engraftment are strongly correlated, a 4th cohort (n=8; patients requir ng 15 days to achieve a platelet count 50,000/ul) was also analyzed. Although not significant (p=0.09), the harvest would be considered low optimal by MVF but quite adequate by flow. In conclusion, MVF is a valuable point of care methodology for graft assessm ;nt given its fast turn around time and minimal technical skill level. The availability of commercial CD34 controls will allow closer correlation of the 2 methods, especi: lly within an institution. Cohort Microvolume Fluorimetry Flow Cytometry Gran 500 Plat 50lt {\%}CD34 CD34/kg (xlO6) {\%} CD34 CD34/kg (×106) Day: Day: MM 1.6 11.2 2.2 17.5 9 12 SEN 0.8 5.6 1.3 10.7 10 13 ND 1.9 10.9 3.3 19.6 11 13 Plat d 15 0.4 4.1 0.7 7.3 11 18 All values represent the mean determination for each cohort.",
author = "Noga, {S. J.} and B. Myers and Miller, {S. C.} and Loper, {K. A.} and S. Meusel and I. Flinn and Vogelsang, {Georgia Boyce} and O'Donnell, {P. V.}",
year = "2000",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "96",
journal = "Blood",
issn = "0006-4971",
publisher = "American Society of Hematology",
number = "11 PART I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of CD34 apheresis yields by microvolume fluorimetry (MVF) or conventional flow cytometry

T2 - Is there an effect on clinical outcome?

AU - Noga, S. J.

AU - Myers, B.

AU - Miller, S. C.

AU - Loper, K. A.

AU - Meusel, S.

AU - Flinn, I.

AU - Vogelsang, Georgia Boyce

AU - O'Donnell, P. V.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - We have shown (hat the absolute peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count generated using the IMAGN 2000® microvolume fluorimeter(MVF; 50nl sample size, 45 min tunaround) and the STELLer® CD34 assay correlates with the CD34+ cell dose/kg through rat the apheresis procedure. Thus, use of a PB CD34 algorithm can determine the optirial collection day and/or duration. Several groups have established standardized flow cytometry methods for CD34 enumeration. Both methods were used to assess the algorithm-genera ed final PBSC products of 42 hématologie malignancy patients [indolent lymphoma (FND):n = 19, sensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease (SEN):n =12, multi )le myeloma (MM):n= 11]. All were enrolled on a critical pathway for PBSC mobilizat on which included priming with cyclophosphamide (CY, 2.5 g/m2) and G-CSF (10 meg/kg). The algorithm-set collection time uses 4-5×106 CD34+ cells/kg as the optimal target yit d. Patients (n=38) with sufficient collection kinetics were harvested within 1 apheresis procedure. The mean (95% CI) CD34 percentage for all grafts was 1.2% (0.7) for MVF and 1.8 %(1.1 ) for flow (Sutherland method) with the final product containing 8.8x 106(E .0) and 14.1×106(9.7) CD34+ cells/kg (p0.04, t test), respectively. Review of the 3 diseise cohorts showed differences in collection kinetics, but there were no(by t t;st analysis)significant differences found between methods of CD34 enumeration. Since CC 34 dose and platelet engraftment are strongly correlated, a 4th cohort (n=8; patients requir ng 15 days to achieve a platelet count 50,000/ul) was also analyzed. Although not significant (p=0.09), the harvest would be considered low optimal by MVF but quite adequate by flow. In conclusion, MVF is a valuable point of care methodology for graft assessm ;nt given its fast turn around time and minimal technical skill level. The availability of commercial CD34 controls will allow closer correlation of the 2 methods, especi: lly within an institution. Cohort Microvolume Fluorimetry Flow Cytometry Gran 500 Plat 50lt %CD34 CD34/kg (xlO6) % CD34 CD34/kg (×106) Day: Day: MM 1.6 11.2 2.2 17.5 9 12 SEN 0.8 5.6 1.3 10.7 10 13 ND 1.9 10.9 3.3 19.6 11 13 Plat d 15 0.4 4.1 0.7 7.3 11 18 All values represent the mean determination for each cohort.

AB - We have shown (hat the absolute peripheral blood (PB) CD34 count generated using the IMAGN 2000® microvolume fluorimeter(MVF; 50nl sample size, 45 min tunaround) and the STELLer® CD34 assay correlates with the CD34+ cell dose/kg through rat the apheresis procedure. Thus, use of a PB CD34 algorithm can determine the optirial collection day and/or duration. Several groups have established standardized flow cytometry methods for CD34 enumeration. Both methods were used to assess the algorithm-genera ed final PBSC products of 42 hématologie malignancy patients [indolent lymphoma (FND):n = 19, sensitive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease (SEN):n =12, multi )le myeloma (MM):n= 11]. All were enrolled on a critical pathway for PBSC mobilizat on which included priming with cyclophosphamide (CY, 2.5 g/m2) and G-CSF (10 meg/kg). The algorithm-set collection time uses 4-5×106 CD34+ cells/kg as the optimal target yit d. Patients (n=38) with sufficient collection kinetics were harvested within 1 apheresis procedure. The mean (95% CI) CD34 percentage for all grafts was 1.2% (0.7) for MVF and 1.8 %(1.1 ) for flow (Sutherland method) with the final product containing 8.8x 106(E .0) and 14.1×106(9.7) CD34+ cells/kg (p0.04, t test), respectively. Review of the 3 diseise cohorts showed differences in collection kinetics, but there were no(by t t;st analysis)significant differences found between methods of CD34 enumeration. Since CC 34 dose and platelet engraftment are strongly correlated, a 4th cohort (n=8; patients requir ng 15 days to achieve a platelet count 50,000/ul) was also analyzed. Although not significant (p=0.09), the harvest would be considered low optimal by MVF but quite adequate by flow. In conclusion, MVF is a valuable point of care methodology for graft assessm ;nt given its fast turn around time and minimal technical skill level. The availability of commercial CD34 controls will allow closer correlation of the 2 methods, especi: lly within an institution. Cohort Microvolume Fluorimetry Flow Cytometry Gran 500 Plat 50lt %CD34 CD34/kg (xlO6) % CD34 CD34/kg (×106) Day: Day: MM 1.6 11.2 2.2 17.5 9 12 SEN 0.8 5.6 1.3 10.7 10 13 ND 1.9 10.9 3.3 19.6 11 13 Plat d 15 0.4 4.1 0.7 7.3 11 18 All values represent the mean determination for each cohort.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748660244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748660244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33748660244

VL - 96

JO - Blood

JF - Blood

SN - 0006-4971

IS - 11 PART I

ER -