Cryopreservation of adult unrelated donor products in hematopoietic cell transplantation: the OneMatch experience and systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND The frequency of cryopreserving blood stem or progenitor products from unrelated donors is not known and the underlying reasons are poorly documented. Greater insight is needed to develop policies on cryopreservation that balance donor safety with patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS C...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transfusion (Philadelphia, Pa.) Pa.), 2017-11, Vol.57 (11), p.2782-2789
Hauptverfasser: Aziz, Joseph, Morris, Gail, Rizk, Mina, Shorr, Risa, Mercer, Dena, Young, Kimberly, Allan, David
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:BACKGROUND The frequency of cryopreserving blood stem or progenitor products from unrelated donors is not known and the underlying reasons are poorly documented. Greater insight is needed to develop policies on cryopreservation that balance donor safety with patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Cryopreservation requests between January 1, 2014, and May 31, 2016, at the OneMatch Stem Cell and Marrow Network at Canadian Blood Services were reviewed and a systematic review of the literature was performed. RESULTS Thirty products of 719 (4.2%) unrelated donor collections facilitated by OneMatch were cryopreserved. Patient‐related reasons were most common and included the need to delay transplant for continued antimicrobial treatment (six patients), patient too deconditioned to proceed with scheduled transplant (five patients), and/or need for more treatment for relapsed disease (three patients). Donor‐related issues leading to cryopreservation requests were less common (five cases), mainly due to lack of donor availability after attempting to reschedule. Cryopreservation of a product that was never infused occurred infrequently (two cases, 7%). In our systematic review of the literature, 993 cases were identified in 32 published reports. Both patient‐related and donor‐related reasons were cited but not specifically reported, precluding quantitative insight regarding the relative frequency of causes. The impact of cryopreservation on hematopoietic engraftment appears negligible when compared to controls in a subset of studies; however, reporting of outcomes was inconsistent. CONCLUSION Future studies with standard outcome measures are needed to clarify the impact of cryopreservation on engraftment and other transplant outcomes. International guidelines that consider the ethical framework surrounding requests for donor product cryopreservation are needed.
ISSN:0041-1132
1537-2995
DOI:10.1111/trf.14360