Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant is a curative procedure for many patients with leukemia, lymphoma, myelodysplasia, myeloproliferative neoplasms, and genetic disorders. Umbilical cord blood transplantation is a graft source for patients who do not have a matched donor in their family or in the unrelated registry. It is particularly difficult for Black, Hispanic, and White patients of non-Western European background to find fully matched adult volunteer donors. An estimated 700,000 umbilical cord blood units have been donated for public use, and over 40,000 umbilical cord blood transplantations have been performed. Over 25,000 patients have been cured with this approach.
Keywords
Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation, Umbilical cord blood transplantation, Regenerative Medicine
Traditionally, allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) has been limited to fully matched related or unrelated donors. Each brother or sister has a 25% chance of matching the patient; given the size of most families in the US and Western Europe, only 30% of patients will have a fully matched donor in their family1. Because the cells from the newborn baby are immunologically more naïve, there is less risk of the immune-mediated complication of graft-versus-host disease after umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) and therefore the patient and the UCB unit do not need to be as closely matched. Thus, patients of diverse racial/ethnic background may be more likely to find a suitable UCB donor when they cannot find a family or registry donor2. In this overview, we discuss cord blood banking, pediatric and adult UCBT, and future directions in the field. We compare UCBT with other transplant approaches, including haploidentical (half-matched) transplant.
Cord blood banking
The UCB unit is collected from term healthy babies. It can be collected after vaginal or surgical deliveries. UCB collection does not interfere in any way with the normal delivery process. Recently, there has been more interest in delayed cord blood clamping. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and other professional organizations have issued position statements on the recommended cord blood clamping time, which collectors of UCB are urged to follow3.
In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration began licensure of UCB units, and currently less than 10% of the worldwide UCB inventory is licensed. Unlicensed UCB units can be obtained under an Investigational New Drug Application, and outcome results are excellent with these UCB units as well4. Cord blood banking practices have changed over the years to more automated methods, with no impact on survival5.
Pediatric umbilical cord blood transplants
The first successful related and unrelated donor UCBTs were performed in children6,7. Although there have been no randomized prospective studies comparing outcomes among graft sources, several retrospective studies have shown comparable survival8. Outcomes for pediatric patients with acute leukemia receiving unrelated UCBT were compared with outcomes after a matched unrelated donor transplant (HCT)9. The best results were in children who received fully matched UCBT. Results were comparable between traditional unrelated bone marrow transplantation and UCBT. Single versus double UCBT has been studied in a prospective randomized study and there was no advantage to the most costly double UCBT10. Children with metabolic disorders such as Hurler syndrome, Krabbe disease, and Sanfilippo syndrome have excellent outcomes if transplanted early in their disease course (75% at 5 years)11.
Adult cord blood transplantation
After the initial encouraging results in children, UCBT was extended to adults with hematologic malignancies who did not have a matched family or volunteer donor. Initial results indicated a high transplant-related mortality, which improved with the use of better UCB unit selection, modern supportive care, especially regarding infection prevention and treatment, and the use of UCB units with higher cell doses12. Double UCBT (using two partially matched UCB units) and the use of reduced-intensity conditioning were pioneered by the group at the University of Minnesota and incorporated into several transplant centers, with disease-free survival of 35–45%13–15. The use of single versus double UCBT has not been tested in a phase III study in adults and remains controversial.
FMS-like tyrosine kinase (FLT3) acute myeloid leukemia has a high risk of relapse and is an indication for HCT. Leukemia-free survival was similar among patients who received UCBT, sibling HCT, or matched unrelated donor, although graft-versus-host disease was lowest in UCBT16.
Selection of the optimal UCB unit is more complex than in standard related donor or unrelated donor transplantation. In addition to HLA matching, there are decisions regarding cell dose, HLA antibodies, and cell viability. Patients who harbor donor-specific HLA antibodies against the chosen UCB unit have been shown to have poorer engraftment and survival, and these units should be avoided17.
Comparison with haploidentical transplantation
A haploidentical HCT is an HCT from a half-matched donor. Based on genetics, children, parents, and 50% of siblings could serve as a haploidentical donor. Parallel phase 2 studies showed similar 1-year overall and progression-free survivals18. A large national US randomized, phase III study comparing these two graft sources is under way. This is a high-priority study for the transplant community.
New trends in cord blood transplantation
One of the limiting factors of UCBT is the delayed engraftment and immune recovery that may lead to infection, particularly uncommon viral infections19. Leukemia patients with a poor performance status have decreased survival with UCBT compared with other graft sources, likely due to high rates of infection and transplant-related complications. Several strategies have been undertaken to improve this delayed immune recovery: homing to the bone marrow, ex vivo expansion, and infection prophylaxis (Table 1)20. All studies are small and none has documented improved survival in a randomized study. In general, the ex vivo expansion studies require more specialized techniques available in only a few centers. However, the cost of procurement of each UCB unit is $30,000 to $45,000, which may make ex vivo expansion of 1 UCB unit more cost-effective than using 2 UCB units. Homing strategies include intrabone marrow UCBT, in which the UCB unit is injected directly into the iliac crest. A Japanese study showed faster platelet engraftment and improved donor chimerism (the measure of donor versus recipient DNA) with this approach21. Selectins are needed to initiate stem cell homing and are modified via a fucosylation process. A small study using fucosylation of UCB cells has shown engraftment in 14 days22. The combination of haploidentical with either a single or double UCBT has been shown to improve engraftment23–25.
Ex vivo expansion studies include the use of the Notch Ligand, Delta 1, mesenchymal progenitor cell expansion, and a nicotinamide-based expansion with cytokines26–28. This last approach resulted in engraftment in 13 days and now is part of a randomized controlled trial.
One novel approach to decrease viral infection is to use tri virus (adenovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and cytomegalovirus)–expanded T cells. These T cells have been used successfully to treat refractory viral infections after UCBT29.
Regenerative medicine
An exciting new opportunity is using either autologous or unrelated UCBT for diseases outside the traditional scope of oncology. UCB stem cells have greater proliferative potential than adult bone marrow stem cells30. UCB has been used to treat neurologic diseases such as autism, cerebral palsy, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and traumatic brain injury31. In cerebral palsy, intravenous autologous UCB infusions have been administered safely32. Allogeneic infusions have also been used; 47 patients with severe cerebral palsy received safe treatment with unmatched allogeneic UCB cells, given both intravenously and intrathecally33. Gross motor function scores improved, and there was no graft-versus-host disease34.
In cardiovascular disease, several trials are under way for cardiomyopathy and coronary artery disease. In cardiovascular disease, UCB mesenchymal stem cells secrete cytokines that stimulate angiogenesis35. In animal models (rat) of myocardial infarction, UCB-derived mesenchymal stem cells have demonstrated decreased size of myocardial infarct and improved cardiac pumping function36,37.
About 15 million babies are born preterm worldwide; owing to hypoxia-ischemia, these babies are at high risk of neurodevelopmental problems38. Clinical trials using UCB are ongoing at Duke University Medical Center and the National University of Singapore (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00593242)31,39. Human UCB-derived cells are also being investigated for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, corneal disease, renal disease, and collagen-induced arthritis40–42.
Conclusions
From the first UCBT in 1988, the field of UCBT has evolved considerably43. UCBT is now a standard treatment for both children and adults who do not have matched sibling or unrelated donors. A large clinical trial is under way to compare UCBT with haploidentical HCT. Transplant outcomes continue to improve with refinement in UCB unit selection and infection prevention. Ex vivo expansion and homing strategies are in clinical trials to reduce the risk of infection. Finally, new applications of UCB in cerebral palsy, autism, and cardiovascular disease are likely to make major health impacts in the next 5–10 years.
Competing interests
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Grant information
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
2.
Barker JN, Byam CE, Kernan NA, et al.:
Availability of cord blood extends allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant access to racial and ethnic minorities.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2010; 16(11): 1541–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
3.
Vatansever B, Demirel G, Ciler Eren E, et al.:
Is early cord clamping, delayed cord clamping or cord milking best?
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med.
2017; 1–4. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
4.
Ballen KK, Logan BR, Chitphakdithai P, et al.:
Excellent Outcomes in 1589 Patients Receiving Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation Using Unlicensed Units From a Centralized Cord Blood Registry.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2017; 23(3 Supplement): S170. Publisher Full Text
5.
Nikiforow S, Li S, Snow K, et al.:
Lack of impact of umbilical cord blood unit processing techniques on clinical outcomes in adult double cord blood transplant recipients.
Cytotherapy.
2017; 19(2): 272–84. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
6.
Kurtzberg J, Laughlin M, Graham ML, et al.:
Placental blood as a source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation into unrelated recipients.
N Engl J Med.
1996; 335(3): 157–66. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
7.
Gluckman E, Broxmeyer HA, Auerbach AD, et al.:
Hematopoietic reconstitution in a patient with Fanconi's anemia by means of umbilical-cord blood from an HLA-identical sibling.
N Engl J Med.
1989; 321(17): 1174–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
8.
Rocha V, Cornish J, Sievers EL, et al.:
Comparison of outcomes of unrelated bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants in children with acute leukemia.
Blood.
2001; 97(10): 2962–71. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
9.
Eapen M, Rubinstein P, Zhang MJ, et al.:
Outcomes of transplantation of unrelated donor umbilical cord blood and bone marrow in children with acute leukaemia: a comparison study.
Lancet.
2007; 369(9577): 1947–54. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
11.
Prasad VK, Mendizabal A, Parikh SH, et al.:
Unrelated donor umbilical cord blood transplantation for inherited metabolic disorders in 159 pediatric patients from a single center: influence of cellular composition of the graft on transplantation outcomes.
Blood.
2008; 112(7): 2979–89. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
12.
Laughlin MJ, Barker J, Bambach B, et al.:
Hematopoietic engraftment and survival in adult recipients of umbilical-cord blood from unrelated donors.
N Engl J Med.
2001; 344(24): 1815–22. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
13.
Ballen KK, Spitzer TR, Yeap BY, et al.:
Double unrelated reduced-intensity umbilical cord blood transplantation in adults.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2007; 13(1): 82–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
14.
Barker JN, Weisdorf DJ, DeFor TE, et al.:
Transplantation of 2 partially HLA-matched umbilical cord blood units to enhance engraftment in adults with hematologic malignancy.
Blood.
2005; 105(3): 1343–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
15.
Cutler C, Stevenson K, Kim HT, et al.:
Double umbilical cord blood transplantation with reduced intensity conditioning and sirolimus-based GVHD prophylaxis.
Bone Marrow Transplant.
2011; 46(5): 659–67. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
17.
Cutler C, Kim HT, Sun L, et al.:
Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies predict outcome in double umbilical cord blood transplantation.
Blood.
2011; 118(25): 6691–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
18.
Brunstein CG, Fuchs EJ, Carter SL, et al.:
Alternative donor transplantation after reduced intensity conditioning: results of parallel phase 2 trials using partially HLA-mismatched related bone marrow or unrelated double umbilical cord blood grafts.
Blood.
2011; 118(2): 282–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
19.
Ballen K, Woo Ahn K, Chen M, et al.:
Infection Rates among Acute Leukemia Patients Receiving Alternative Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant.
2016; 22(9): 1636–45. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
20.
Kiernan J, Damien P, Monaghan M, et al.:
Clinical Studies of Ex Vivo Expansion to Accelerate Engraftment After Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation: A Systematic Review.
Transfus Med Rev.
2017; 31(3): 173–82. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
21.
Kurita N, Gosho M, Yokoyama Y, et al.:
A phase I/II trial of intrabone marrow cord blood transplantation and comparison of the hematological recovery with the Japanese nationwide database.
Bone Marrow Transplant.
2017; 52(4): 574–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
23.
Bautista G, Cabrera JR, Regidor C, et al.:
Cord blood transplants supported by co-infusion of mobilized hematopoietic stem cells from a third-party donor.
Bone Marrow Transplant.
2009; 43(5): 365–73. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
24.
Liu H, Rich ES, Godley L, et al.:
Reduced-intensity conditioning with combined haploidentical and cord blood transplantation results in rapid engraftment, low GVHD, and durable remissions.
Blood.
2011; 118(24): 6438–45. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
25.
Ponce DM, Dahi PB, Devlin S, et al.:
Double-unit cord blood transplantation combined with haplo-identical CD34+ selected PSBC results in 100% CB engraftment and enhanced myeloid recovery.
Blood.
2013; 122(21): 298. Reference Source
26.
Horwitz ME, Chao NJ, Rizzieri DA, et al.:
Umbilical cord blood expansion with nicotinamide provides long-term multilineage engraftment.
J Clin Invest.
2014; 124(7): 3121–8. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
29.
Hanley PJ, Cruz CR, Savoldo B, et al.:
Functionally active virus-specific T cells that target CMV, adenovirus, and EBV can be expanded from naive T-cell populations in cord blood and will target a range of viral epitopes.
Blood.
2009; 114(9): 1958–67. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
30.
van de Ven C, Collins D, Bradley MB, et al.:
The potential of umbilical cord blood multipotent stem cells for nonhematopoietic tissue and cell regeneration.
Exp Hematol.
2007; 35(12): 1753–65. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
31.
Cotten CM, Murtha AP, Goldberg RN, et al.:
Feasibility of autologous cord blood cells for infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
J Pediatr.
2014; 164(5): 973–979.e1. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
32.
Sun J, Allison J, McLaughlin C, et al.:
Differences in quality between privately and publicly banked umbilical cord blood units: a pilot study of autologous cord blood infusion in children with acquired neurologic disorders.
Transfusion.
2010; 50(9): 1980–7. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
34.
Feng M, Gao HX, Dai P, et al.:
Clinical observation on the efficacy of umbilical blood stem cell transplantation in 30 cases with severe cerebral palsy.
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion.
2011; 24(7): 602–604.
36.
Ma J, Zhao Y, Sun L, et al.:
Exosomes Derived from Akt-Modified Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Cardiac Regeneration and Promote Angiogenesis via Activating Platelet-Derived Growth Factor D.
Stem Cells Transl Med.
2017; 6(1): 51–9. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
37.
Furfaro EM, Gaballa MA:
Do adult stem cells ameliorate the damaged myocardium? Human cord blood as a potential source of stem cells.
Curr Vasc Pharmacol.
2007; 5(1): 27–44. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
38.
Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, et al.:
National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications.
Lancet.
2012; 379(9832): 2162–72. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
40.
Mao F, Wu Y, Tang X, et al.:
Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells alleviate inflammatory bowel disease through the regulation of 15-LOX-1 in macrophages.
Biotechnol Lett.
2017; 39(6): 929–38. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
41.
Shao C, Chen J, Chen P, et al.:
Targeted transplantation of human umbilical cord blood endothelial progenitor cells with immunomagnetic nanoparticles to repair corneal endothelium defect.
Stem Cells Dev.
2015; 24(6): 756–67. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
| F1000 Recommendation
42.
Peng X, Xu H, Zhou Y, et al.:
Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells attenuate cisplatin-induced acute and chronic renal injury.
Exp Biol Med (Maywood).
2013; 238(8): 960–70. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
Ballen K. Update on umbilical cord blood transplantation [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1556 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11952.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Share
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEWHIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an
... Continue reading
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Adjust parameters to alter display
View on desktop for interactive features
Includes Interactive Elements
View on desktop for interactive features
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Comments on this article Comments (0)