One of my greatest pleasures in writing has come from the thought that perhaps my work might annoy someone of comfortably pretentious position. Then comes the saddening realization that such people rarely read.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Introduction
It is widely-believed recovery of bone marrow function after a haematopoietic cell transplant arises from pluripotent haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs; hence haematopoietic stem cell transplant) [1], that numbers of CD34-positive cells in a graft are an accurate proxy for numbers of HSCs [2, 3], that dose of CD34-positive cells should be quantified by body weight and that there is a threshold dose of CD34-positive cells required for successful posttransplant bone marrow recovery [4,5,6,7,8,9].
In this Perspective we argue several or all of these commonly held notions are wrong. We consider biological plausibility, experimental data in mice and humans and advanced statistical analyses of a dataset of recipients of cord blood cell transplants for leukaemia. Our conclusions have important implications for transplant practices.
Experimental data
Can we accurately identify human HSCs and are they CD34-positive?
We start emphasizing currently there is no accurate nor precise way to identify human haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [10,11,12]. Data from transplanting human bone marrow into immune-deficient mice suggest 10E-6 to 10E-7 of mononuclear cells might be HSCs, a frequency which might be higher in human umbilical cord blood, lower in blood cells and still lower in so-called mobilised blood cells [13]. Because most mononuclear cells are not HSCs many people have focused on measuring CD34-positive cells assuming human HSCs are CD34-positive. Lacking an accurate and precise assay for humans HSCs [14,15,16] this is, of course, conjecture. Moreover, in mice quiescent HSCs are CD34-negative and express CD34 only after they begin to divide [17]. Whether this is so in humans is unknown. Other data suggest a constantly-changing phenotype of human HSCs [11]. Regardless, most CD34-positive cells in bone marrow, blood and umbilical cord blood are not HSCs [14]. Because almost all CD34-positive cells in a graft are not HSCs estimating numbers of HSCs based on numbers of CD34-positive cells must be imprecise. For instance, if we assume the ratio of HSCs to CD34-positive cells is 1 to 5000 in umbilical cord blood a graft containing 40 × 10E+5 CD34-positive cells could have 10 percent variation in numbers of HSCs because of Poisson noise.
What cells are responsible for posttransplant recovery of bone marrow function
Another complexity is that we don’t know which haematopoietic cell(s) restore posttransplant bone marrow function. Data in mice indicate many different cells including many which are not HSCs contribute to short- and long-term posttransplant bone marrow recovery [18,19,20]. Data in humans are largely consistent with data in mice where short- and long-term bone marrow recovery are driven by different cell types [21,22,23]. Even within the phenotypically most primitive HSC pool individual stem cells can have very different self-renewal potentials and different contributions to bone marrow recovery [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Namely, not all HSCs contribute equally to sustained multi-lineage haematopoiesis and most show biased differentiation towards specific haematopoietic lineages.
Clinical considerations
Considering the above we are left with 3 currently insoluble problems. 1st, we cannot accurately and precisely identify human HSCs. 2nd, we do not know which cells in a graft (HSCs, others or most likely a combination) are responsible for short- and long-term posttransplant recovery of bone marrow function. 3rd, it is highly likely residual recipient haematopoietic cells contribute in whole or part to posttransplant bone marrow recovery [31]; this is especially likely after less intensive pretransplant conditioning regimens (reduced-intensity [RIC] and non-myelo-ablative) but recovery of endogenous haematopoiesis is still plausible even after high-dose total body radiation without a transplant [32, 33] .
Despite these uncertainties transplant physicians feel compelled to address 2 questions: (1) how to derive a measure for haematopoietic potential of a graft using the number of CD34-positive cells despite the caveats we discussed; and (2) whether there is a threshold dose needed for successful posttransplant bone marrow recovery.
Although numbers of CD34-positive cells in a graft and ability to restore posttransplant bone marrow function are dissimilar, provided the two maintain a relatively predictable ratio CD34-positive cell dose might still be a useful surrogate. This raises the question of how numbers of CD34-positive cells can be converted to a dose. Presently, CD34-positive cell dose is quantified by body weight [4,5,6,7,8,9, 34]. The biological justification for this widely-adopted practice is unclear: In the graft we are dealing with some cells with substantial proliferative potential, not a drug that is stoichiometrically metabolised by the liver or excreted by the kidneys. Mammals come in various sizes from a mouse (20 g) to humans (70 kg) to elephants (6000 kg). Although an elephant has many more cells than a mouse (3 × 10E+9 versus 10E+15) the haematopoietic systems in both arise from one or a few HSCs. A human gaining 20 kg does not suddenly have more cells (just bigger fat cells) and his or her blood volume certainly would not suddenly increase by 30 percent because blood volume correlates better with lean body mass than with body weight, body mass index or body surface area across both sexes at all Tanner stages [35].Footnote 1 Does such a person need 30 percent more CD34-positive cells to recover posttransplant bone marrow function were we to calculate this by body weight? Obviously no [36, 37].
Is there a required threshold dose for CD34-positive cells?
We further argue it is biologically implausible there is a threshold dose of CD34-positive cells for successful posttransplant bone marrow recovery. If there is a threshold dose the hazard function for recovery of bone marrow function is expected to be zero until the dose, however quantified, exceeds the threshold. Conversely, if there is no threshold dose, the hazard function would continuously increase unless the dose is zero (Fig. 1A). Previous research that interrogated the relationship between CD34-positive cell dose and posttransplant bone marrow recovery uniformly analysed dose by discretising it into multiple classes (Table 1) [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. This approach cannot uncover the shape of the dose-response curve for CD34-positive cell dose versus haematopoietic function recovery and therefore is not suitable for answering the question whether there is a threshold dose of CD34-positive cells [48]. Previous studies also reported contradictory data on correlations between CD34-positive cell dose and various transplant endpoints such as survival [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. This likely reflects confounding co-variates including sex, age, disease, disease state, pre- and posttransplant conditioning and immune-suppression regimens, histo-compatibility between donor and recipient, graft-type, development of graft-versus-host disease, interstitial pneumonia and others.
Consensus guidelines suggest a threshold dose of CD34-positive cell dose ranging from 1.5 × 10E+5/kg for umbilical cord blood cell grafts to 4 or 5 × 10E+6/kg for mobilised blood cell grafts [4,5,6,7,8,9]. Applying this recommendation suggests only 4% of the US cord blood inventory is suitable for single-unit transplants for adults [49]. Theoretically, however, even one HSC is capable of restoring posttransplant bone marrow function given sufficient time (provided we can keep the recipient alive for a prolonged interval) [13, 37]. Data in mice indicate some HSC clones are highly efficient in restoring long-term bone marrow function [50]. Moreover, we reported recovery of bone marrow function in a person exposed to acute extremely high-dose and -dose-rate total body radiation without a transplant [32, 33], indicating the jargon of myelo-ablative pretransplant conditioning is wrong. Because radiation killing of cells is stochastic it is nearly impossible ionising radiation could kill every HSC without killing the person.
Clinical data
To help resolve these challenges and controversies and despite our reservations we interrogated data from 619 consecutive subjects with acute leukaemia receiving a single-unit umbilical cord blood cell transplant (details in Supplement Table 1; Supplement Fig. 1). We chose umbilical cord blood cell transplants because an insufficient CD34-positive cell dose is often cited as the reason to exclude potential recipients (mostly adults) [51] and because umbilical cord blood likely has the highest fraction of HSCs amongst CD34-positive cells [13]. Almost one-half of subjects in our cohort were > 16 years. The lowest, 5th-, 10th- and 25th-percentile values of CD34-positive cells per kg of recipient body weight were 0.17, 0.60, 0.83 and 1.28 × 10E+5/kg. Namely, the lowest CD34-positive cell dose was almost one-tenth of the threshold dose according to consensus guidelines. Additionally, the CD34-positive cells were quantified at a central laboratory (Supplement Methods) avoiding non-standardized CD34-positive cell quantification confounding many studies. Our dataset allowed us to pressure-test the idea of threshold dose for successful posttransplant bone marrow recovery.
We considered 3 expressions of CD34-positive cell dose: (1) absolute numbers of CD34-positive cells (Abs CD34-positive); (2) numbers of CD34-positive cells per kg of recipient body weight (CD34-positive/BW); and (3) numbers of CD34-positive cells per litre of recipient blood volume (CD34-positive/BV; “BV” stands for blood volume), with blood volume estimated as described [35].
Our focus was on granulocyte recovery because analyses of RBC and platelet recovery are confounded by pre- and posttransplant transfusions, granulocytes are the most short-lived cells and granulocyte recovery is most closely correlated with early posttransplant therapy-related mortality. Analyses of survival and other transplant endpoints are tangential to our primary concern because of confounders such as graft-versus-host disease and leukaemia recurrence. For each measure of CD34-positive cell dose we calculated two concordance values: (1) concordance with interval to granulocyte recovery (equivalent to the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve) [52]; and (2) concordance with granulocyte recovery within 21 days by fitting a logistic regression model [53]. Among the three expressions of CD34-positive cell dose, CD34-positive/BV had the highest concordance with granulocyte recovery (Table 2), especially in instances with “extreme” ratios ( < 15th- or >85th-percentile values) of lean body mass to body weight. Results were similar when subjects receiving pretransplant radiation and/or posttransplant methotrexate were censored (Supplement Table 2).
We used a Bayesian Cox regression model with restricted cubic splines to estimate the non-linear CD34-positive cell dose effect (Supplement Methods) and roughness penalty minimization and Markov chain Monte Carlo to estimate confidence intervals of the dose-response curves [54, 55]. We found the hazard function for granulocyte recovery was erratic when CD34-positive cell dose was quantified as absolute numbers of CD34-positive cells (Fig. 1B). In contrast, the hazard function of CD34-positive cell dose per kilogram of recipient body weight plateaued at ≈ 1.5 once CD34-positive/BW was > 3 × 10E+5/kg, and there was no threshold value below which the hazard function abruptly dropped to zero (Fig. 1C). The hazard function of CD34-positive cell dose per litre of recipient blood volume plateaued at ≈ 1.5 when CD34-positive /BV was > 0.5 × 10E+7/L and the hazard remained ≈ 0.5 even when CD34-positive/BV dropped to 0.05 × 10E+7/L, the 2.5th-percentile value in this study cohort (Fig. 1D). Results were similar when subjects receiving pretransplant radiation and/or posttransplant methotrexate were censored (Supplement Fig. 2).
Next, we divided the subjects into quintiles according to CD34-positive cell dose and for each quintile calculated median log2(CD34-positive cell dose) versus interval to granulocyte recovery. Quintile median log2(dose) and quintile median interval to granulocyte recovery correlated the best when dose was quantified per blood volume (r = –0.96 (CD34-positive/BV) versus –0.85 (Abs CD34-positive) and –0.92 (CD34-positive/BW); Fig. 1E–G). Analysis of the linear regression coefficients of quintile median interval to granulocyte recovery versus quintile log2(CD34-positive/BV) suggests the number of granulocytes in the blood doubled every 1.6 days (Fig. 1G). Even in the lowest quintile of CD34-positive/BV dose blood concentrations of NK-, CD8-positive T-, CD4-positive T- and B normalised within 1 year posttransplant, and all the quintiles had similar cumulative incidences of relapse and survival (Supplement Figs. 3 & 4). In multi-variate Cox regression analysis of granulocyte recovery CD34-positive/BV (HR = 1.89 per 10E+7/L [1.42, 2.51]; adjusted P < 0.001) was independently correlated with cumulative incidence of granulocyte recovery (Supplement Fig. 5).
Discussion
We review biological considerations and experimental data indicating cells responsible for posttransplant bone marrow recovery in humans cannot be accurately nor precisely quantified. We also argue why numbers or dose of CD34-positive cells in a graft cannot be an accurate estimate of numbers of cells responsible for posttransplant bone marrow recovery. Nevertheless, given the several studies reporting a correlation between numbers of CD34-positive cells and posttransplant recovery of bone marrow function we used new statistical methods to interrogate a large dataset of umbilical cord blood cell transplants to prove the non-linear CD34-positive cell dose effect and show there is no threshold dose needed for posttransplant recovery of bone marrow function. This observation has important clinical implications which may make more people eligible recipients of a haematopoietic cell transplant, especially an umbilical cord blood cell transplant, and reduced the perceived need for repeated leukaphereses to obtain sufficient numbers of CD34-positive cells from donors.
Despite no threshold dose for posttransplant granulocyte recovery, physicians may want an estimate of the speed with which this occurs. To accomplish this we found CD34-positive cell dose should be calculated based on recipient blood volume, not body weight. Our analyses indicate a near-perfect linear relationship between log2(CD34-positive/BV) and interval to granulocyte recovery. Using this metric the expansion of granulocytes is close to exponential immediately posttransplant. Because of the rarity of HSCs in a haematopoietic cell graft the observed correlation between numbers or dose of CD34-positive cells and rate of posttransplant granulocyte recovery is consistent with the hypothesis precursor and progenitor cells operate in this setting rather than HSCs. (Contradictory data have been reported using gene marker studies [56].) An online calculator for CD34-positive cell dose by recipient blood volume is available at https://skirt-calculator.shinyapps.io/CD34-positive_Cell_Dose_Calculator/.
Our study has limitations. 1st, we suggest our conclusions apply to other graft types such as bone marrow and blood but this needs validation. 2nd, our analyses of the clinical dataset were retrospective and potentially biased. 3rd, although we studied a range of CD34-positive cell doses none was < 0.02 × 10E+7/L or < 0.17 × 10E+5/kg.
In our Perspective, we challenge the notion haematopoietic cell transplants are proved to be stem cell transplants. We also challenge current thinking and practices regarding whether CD34-positive cell dose in a graft should be used as a proxy for predicting short- and long-term posttransplant bone marrow recovery and, if there is no alternative, how CD34-positive cell dose should be quantified. Lastly, we show there is no threshold dose of CD34-positive cells (regardless of how dose is quantified) for successful posttransplant recovery of bone marrow function.
Physicians are conservative and reluctant to change long-established practices regardless of their validity. Our conclusions challenge several sacred cows and we anticipate resistance to accepting them. It is important to recall many firmly-held medical practices are later proved ineffective or even harmful. These situations are termed medical reversals and there are many examples reviewed in recent biomedical literature [57,58,59]. We look forward to validation of our conclusions.
Data availability
Clinical data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding authours.
Change history
30 August 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-023-02012-w
Notes
For example, lean body mass (in kg) of a male or a prepubescent female can be estimated by 0.407 × body-weight (in kg) + 26.7 × body height (in m) – 19.2. Each kg increase of lean body mass translates to 83.8 ml increase of blood volume [35]. A 175 cm tall and 67 kg weight adult male has a lean body mass of 54.8 kg and a blood volume of 4.59 L. After gaining 20 kg his lean body mass increases to 62.9 kg and his blood volume to 5.27 L, a 15 percent increase.
References
Gale RP, Lazarus HM. 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet', or would it? Bone Marrow Transpl. 2013;48:881–3.
Siena S, Bregni M, Brando B, Belli N, Ravagnani F, Gandola L, et al. Flow cytometry for clinical estimation of circulating hematopoietic progenitors for autologous transplantation in cancer patients. Blood 1991;77:400–9.
Berenson RJ, Bensinger WI, Hill RS, Andrews RG, Garcia-Lopez J, Kalamasz DF, et al. Engraftment after infusion of CD34+ marrow cells in patients with breast cancer or neuroblastoma. Blood 1991;77:1717–22.
Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL, Palumbo A, Bensinger W, Comenzo RL, et al. International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100). Leukemia 2009;23:1904–12.
Barker JN, Kurtzberg J, Ballen K, Boo M, Brunstein C, Cutler C. et al. Optimal practices in unrelated donor cord blood transplantation for hematologic malignancies. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2017;23:882–96.
Dehn J, Spellman S, Hurley CK, Shaw BE, Barker JN, Burns LJ, et al. Selection of unrelated donors and cord blood units for hematopoietic cell transplantation: guidelines from the NMDP/CIBMTR. Blood 2019;134:924–34.
Ruggeri A. Optimizing cord blood selection. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2019;2019:522–31.
Ayuk F, Balduzzi A. Donor Selection for Adults and Pediatrics. In: Carreras E, Dufour C, Mohty M, Kroger N, editors. The EBMT Handbook: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapies. 7th ed. Cham (CH) 2019. p. 87-97.
Politikos I, Davis E, Nhaissi M, Wagner JE, Brunstein CG, Cohen S, et al. Guidelines for cord blood unit selection. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26:2190–6.
Quesenberry PJ, Goldberg LR, Dooner MS. Concise reviews: A stem cell apostasy: a tale of four H words. Stem Cells. 2015;33:15–20.
Quesenberry PJ, Wen S, Goldberg LR, Dooner MS. The universal stem cell. Leukemia 2022;36:2784–92.
Goldberg LR, Dooner MS, Papa E, Pereira M, Del Tatto M, Cheng Y, et al. Differentiation epitopes define hematopoietic stem cells and change with cell cycle passage. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2022;18:2351–64.
Wang JC, Doedens M, Dick JE. Primitive human hematopoietic cells are enriched in cord blood compared with adult bone marrow or mobilized peripheral blood as measured by the quantitative in vivo SCID-repopulating cell assay. Blood 1997;89:3919–24.
Bhatia M, Wang JC, Kapp U, Bonnet D, Dick JE. Purification of primitive human hematopoietic cells capable of repopulating immune-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:5320–5.
Goodell MA, Rosenzweig M, Kim H, Marks DF, DeMaria M, Paradis G, et al. Dye efflux studies suggest that hematopoietic stem cells expressing low or undetectable levels of CD34 antigen exist in multiple species. Nat Med. 1997;3:1337–45.
Bhatia M, Bonnet D, Murdoch B, Gan OI, Dick JE. A newly discovered class of human hematopoietic cells with SCID-repopulating activity. Nat Med. 1998;4:1038–45.
Sato T, Laver JH, Ogawa M. Reversible expression of CD34 by murine hematopoietic stem cells. Blood 1999;94:2548–54.
Osawa M, Hanada K, Hamada H, Nakauchi H. Long-term lymphohematopoietic reconstitution by a single CD34-low/negative hematopoietic stem cell. Science. 1996;273:242–5.
Morrison SJ, Wandycz AM, Hemmati HD, Wright DE, Weissman IL. Identification of a lineage of multipotent hematopoietic progenitors. Development 1997;124: 1929–39.
Yang L, Bryder D, Adolfsson J, Nygren J, Mansson R, Sigvardsson M, et al. Identification of Lin(-)Sca1(+)kit(+)CD34(+)Flt3- short-term hematopoietic stem cells capable of rapidly reconstituting and rescuing myeloablated transplant recipients. Blood 2005;105:2717–23.
Aiuti A, Biasco L, Scaramuzza S, Ferrua F, Cicalese MP, Baricordi C, et al. Lentiviral hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy in patients with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. Science 2013;341:1233151.
Biasco L, Pellin D, Scala S, Dionisio F, Basso-Ricci L, Leonardelli L, et al. In vivo tracking of human hematopoiesis reveals patterns of clonal dynamics during early and steady-state reconstitution phases. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;19:107–19.
Kaufmann KB, Zeng AGX, Coyaud E, Garcia-Prat L, Papalexi E, Murison A, et al. A latent subset of human hematopoietic stem cells resists regenerative stress to preserve stemness. Nat Immunol. 2021;22:723–34.
Lemischka IR, Raulet DH, Mulligan RC. Developmental potential and dynamic behavior of hematopoietic stem cells. Cell 1986;45:917–27.
Muller-Sieburg CE, Cho RH, Thoman M, Adkins B, Sieburg HB. Deterministic regulation of hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Blood 2002;100:1302–9.
Muller-Sieburg CE, Cho RH, Karlsson L, Huang JF, Sieburg HB. Myeloid-biased hematopoietic stem cells have extensive self-renewal capacity but generate diminished lymphoid progeny with impaired IL-7 responsiveness. Blood 2004;103:4111–8.
Ema H, Sudo K, Seita J, Matsubara A, Morita Y, Osawa M, et al. Quantification of self-renewal capacity in single hematopoietic stem cells from normal and Lnk-deficient mice. Dev Cell. 2005;8:907–14.
Dykstra B, Kent D, Bowie M, McCaffrey L, Hamilton M, Lyons K, et al. Long-term propagation of distinct hematopoietic differentiation programs in vivo. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1:218–29.
Morita Y, Ema H, Nakauchi H. Heterogeneity and hierarchy within the most primitive hematopoietic stem cell compartment. J Exp Med. 2010;207:1173–82.
Yamamoto R, Morita Y, Ooehara J, Hamanaka S, Onodera M, Rudolph KL, et al. Clonal analysis unveils self-renewing lineage-restricted progenitors generated directly from hematopoietic stem cells. Cell 2013;154:1112–26.
Micklem HS, Ogden DA, Evans EP, Ford CE, Gray JG. Compartments and cell flows within the mouse haemopoietic system. II. Estimated rates of interchange. Cell Tissue Kinet. 1975;8:233–48.
Baranov AE, Selidovkin GD, Butturini A, Gale RP. Hematopoietic recovery after 10-Gy acute total body radiation. Blood 1994;83:596–9.
The Radiological Accident at the Irradiation Facility in Nesvizh. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1996.
Zimmerman TM, Lee WJ, Bender JG, Mick R, Williams SF. Quantitative CD34 analysis may be used to guide peripheral blood stem cell harvests. Bone Marrow Transpl. 1995;15:439–44.
Raes A, Van Aken S, Craen M, Donckerwolcke R, Vande, Walle J. A reference frame for blood volume in children and adolescents. BMC Pediatr. 2006;6:3.
Singhal S, Gordon LI, Tallman MS, Winter JN, Evens AM, Frankfurt O, et al. Ideal rather than actual body weight should be used to calculate cell dose in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2006;37:553–7.
Sanz J, Gale RP. One or two umbilical cord blood cell units? Caveat emptor. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2017;52:341–3.
Klaus J, Herrmann D, Breitkreutz I, Hegenbart U, Mazitschek U, Egerer G, et al. Effect of CD34 cell dose on hematopoietic reconstitution and outcome in 508 patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Eur J Haematol. 2007;78:21–8.
Pulsipher MA, Chitphakdithai P, Logan BR, Leitman SF, Anderlini P, Klein JP, et al. Donor, recipient, and transplant characteristics as risk factors after unrelated donor PBSC transplantation: beneficial effects of higher CD34+ cell dose. Blood 2009;114:2606–16.
Torlen J, Ringden O, Le Rademacher J, Batiwalla M, Chen J, Erkers T, et al. Low CD34 dose is associated with poor survival after reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2014;20:1418–25.
Martin PS, Li S, Nikiforow S, Alyea EP 3rd, Antin JH, Armand P, et al. Infused total nucleated cell dose is a better predictor of transplant outcomes than CD34+ cell number in reduced-intensity mobilized peripheral blood allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Haematologica 2016;101:499–505.
Konuma T, Kato S, Oiwa-Monna M, Tanoue S, Ogawa M, Isobe M, et al. Cryopreserved CD34(+) cell dose, but not total nucleated cell dose, influences hematopoietic recovery and extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease after single-unit cord blood transplantation in adult patients. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2017;23:1142–50.
Chen Y, Xu LP, Liu KY, Chen H, Chen YH, Zhang XH, et al. Higher dose of CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells is associated with better survival after haploidentical stem cell transplantation in pediatric patients. Clin Transplant. 2017;31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.12880.
Yamamoto C, Ogawa H, Fukuda T, Igarashi A, Okumura H, Uchida N, et al. Impact of a low CD34(+) cell dose on allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2018;24:708–16.
Yanada M, Konuma T, Kuwatsuka Y, Kondo T, Kawata T, Takahashi S, et al. Unit selection for umbilical cord blood transplantation for adults with acute myeloid leukemia in complete remission: a Japanese experience. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2019;54:1789–98.
Yokoyama Y, Maie K, Fukuda T, Uchida N, Mukae J, Sawa M, et al. A high CD34(+) cell dose is associated with better disease-free survival in patients with low-risk diseases undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation from HLA-matched related donors. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:1726–35.
Gauntner TD, Brunstein CG, Cao Q, Weisdorf D, Warlick ED, Jurdi NE, et al. Association of CD34 cell dose with 5-year overall survival after peripheral blood allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in adults with hematologic malignancies. Transpl Cell Ther. 2022;28:88–95.
Gauthier J, Wu QV, Gooley TA. Cubic splines to model relationships between continuous variables and outcomes: a guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transpl. 2020;55:675–80.
Barker JN, Kempenich J, Kurtzberg J, Brunstein CG, Delaney C, Milano F, et al. CD34(+) cell content of 126 341 cord blood units in the US inventory: implications for transplantation and banking. Blood Adv. 2019;3:1267–71.
Notta F, Doulatov S, Laurenti E, Poeppl A, Jurisica I, Dick JE. Isolation of single human hematopoietic stem cells capable of long-term multilineage engraftment. Science 2011;333:218–21.
Kosuri S, Wolff T, Devlin SM, Byam C, Mazis CM, Naputo K, et al. Prospective evaluation of unrelated donor cord blood and haploidentical donor access reveals graft availability varies by patient ancestry: practical implications for donor selection. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2017;23:965–70.
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, Obuchowski N, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010;21:128–38.
Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Interpreting the concordance statistic of a logistic regression model: relation to the variance and odds ratio of a continuous explanatory variable. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:82.
Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983;220:671–80.
Green PJ, Silverman BW. Nonparametric Regression and Generalized Linear Models: A Roughness Penalty Approach. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
Radtke S, Enstrom MR, Pande D, Duke ER, Cardozo Ojeda EF, Madhu R, et al. Stochastic fate decisions of HSCs after transplantation: early contribution, symmetric expansion, and pool formation. Blood. 2023;142:33–43.
Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005;294:218–28.
Prasad V, Cifu A. Medical reversal: why we must raise the bar before adopting new technologies. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84:471–8.
Prasad V, Cifu A. Ending Medical Reversal: Improving Outcomes, Saving Lives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press; 2015.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Profs. Connie Eaves (University of British Columbia) and John Dick (University of Toronto) for valuable inputs. Profs. Hillard Lazarus (University Hospitals) and Armand Keating (University of Toronto) kindly reviewed the typescript.
Funding
Supported, in part, by grants from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2021-I2M-1-001 and 2022-I2M-2-003; JC), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (RPG), the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (84000-51200002; RPG), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81470350; ZS), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WK9110000001; ZS) and Union Stem Cell & Gene Engineering Co., Ltd. (JC and ZS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JC and RPG conceived the study. ZS collected and curated the data, assisted by HZ and HL. JC designed the algorithms. YF, YH, SQ, XL, XG and WZ assisted in computation and generated the graphs and tables. JC and RPG prepared the typescript. All the authours reviewed the typescript, agreed to submit for publication and take responsibility for the content.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
RPG is a consultant to Antengene Biotech LLC, Ascentage Pharma Group and NexImmune Inc.; Medical Director, FFF Enterprises Inc.; Board of Directors: Russian Foundation for Cancer Research Support; and Scientific Advisory Boards, Nanexa AB and StemRad Ltd.
Ethics approval
Approved by the Academic Committee (IIT2021042) of the Institute of Hematology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (IHCAMS) and the Ethics Review Committees of IHCAMS and FAHUSTC (QTJC2022026-EC-1 and 2022-RE-070). Subjects gave written informed consent consistent with precepts of the Helsinki Declaration.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: In the original published online version, “< 1.08 × 10E+7” in row #5 of Table 1 (ref. 41) was misquoted as “< 1.82 × 10E+7”. Table 1 should have appeared as shown below. The original article has been corrected.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, J., Gale, R.P., Feng, Y. et al. Are haematopoietic stem cell transplants stem cell transplants, is there a threshold dose of CD34-positive cells and how many are needed for rapid posttransplant granulocyte recovery?. Leukemia 37, 1963–1968 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-023-01973-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-023-01973-2