The Journal of Reproductive Medicine Patients Knowledge of Umbilical Cord Blood Banking Jordan H. Perlow, M.D. OBJECTIVE: To determine patients knowledge of umbilical cord blood banking (UCBB). METHODS: A questionnaire was administered. Part 1 queried issues of familiarity with the term UCBB. Those patients with any awareness of UCBB were provided with part 2, asking more detailed questions that assessed knowledge. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-five patients completed the survey; 37% had no knowledge of UCBB. Older patients and those with higher degrees of education were more aware of UCBB, and the greatest disparity of knowledge was noted among Native American patients (p < 0.001). Of patients indicating familiarity with UCBB, 2.6% felt extremely knowledgeable, while 74% felt minimally informed. Fifty percent of the patients were misinformed that UCBB was only for the child that I will deliver. Seventy-one percent of patients were not planning UCBB, with expense and insufficient knowledge as the primary reasons cited. Only 14% of patients were educated about UCBB by their nurse or obstetrician, although 90% of patients expected their obstetrician to answer their questions on UCBB. Patients are poorly informed and lacking education and knowledge regarding UCBB... CONCLUSIONS: Patients are poorly informed about UCBB, especially ethnic minorities, younger patients and those with lesser degrees of education. Few patients receive UCBB education from health care providers, yet most patients expect their obstetrician to be able to answer questions on UCBB. Lack of knowledge and expense remain barriers to UCBB. Opportunities to educate patients and obstetric providers on UCBB should be pursued. (J Reprod Med 2006;51:642 648) Keywords: umbilical cord blood, blood banks, pregnancy. Until recently, the cord blood that remains in the placenta and umbilical cord after birth was considered medical waste. Since 1988, however, when the first cord blood stem cell transplant took place to treat a child with Fanconi s anemia, 1 approximately 6,000 individuals worldwide have received medical treatment consisting of the infusion of human umbilical cord blood hematopoietic stem cells for the treatment of more than 70 life-threatening malig- From Phoenix Perinatal Associates, Obstetrix Medical Group of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Presented at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 52nd Annual Clinical Meeting, Philadelphia, May 1 5, 2004. Address correspondence to: Jordan H. Perlow, M.D., Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, 1111 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85006 (perlowmfm@aol.com). Financial Disclosure: The author has no connection to any companies or products mentioned in this article. 642 0024-7758/06/5108-0642/$15.00/0 Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Inc. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine
Volume 51, Number 8/August 2006 643 If physicians are unaware of the benefits of UCBB and/or not informing patients of their options in this regard,...potential therapeutic options can be missed. nant and nonmalignant diseases. 2-5 Currently, approximately 400 cord blood stem cell transplants occur annually in the United States alone. 6 These hematopoietic stem cells are made available through the process of umbilical cord blood banking (UCBB), which allows the collection and cryopreservation of the remaining placental and umbilical cord blood following delivery. The vast majority of cord blood stem cell recipients are dependent on publicly donated banked cord blood, while others acquire their cord blood stem cells from a related newborn, typically a sibling. This therapy, known as stem cell transplantation, has traditionally been performed utilizing bone marrow or peripheral blood as a source of hematopoietic stem cells, but in many circumstances, stem cells from umbilical cord blood are preferable, given a lower risk of graft vs. host disease, greater human leukocyte antigen (HLA) mismatch tolerance, lower costs, less infectious morbidity, more expeditious time to obtainment and nonexistent risk to the donor. 7 The therapeutic use of umbilical cord blood for this purpose has grown dramatically, especially over the past 5 years, with new breakthroughs reported regularly, both in vivo 8 and in vitro. 9,10 Both private cord blood banking and public cord blood donation options exist, each with unique advantages and disadvantages. 11 Private banking allows a family to store umbilical cord blood stem cells for potential future use ( biologic insurance ) or current use if there is a current or likely need for stem cell transplantation by a family member (usually mother or sibling). Several autologous transplants have also taken place from privately banked samples 12-14 in which no prior risk factors existed and a disease, treatable in this manner, was acquired by the child from whose umbilical cord the stem cells were banked. While private cord blood banks will provide services without charge if there is a likely need for stem cell transplantation, there are significant costs associated with private cord blood banking. Public cord blood donation options are limited at the local level, but cord blood donation is available to most patients (singleton pregnancy, arrangements made by 35 weeks gestation, sufficient sample volume collected) without charge to thereby increase the public supply of stem cells. 15 Given the potential benefits of UCBB and the increasing therapeutic use of umbilical cord blood as a source of stem cell therapy, this study was undertaken to determine the current level of knowledge of UCBB among obstetric patients and thereby to assess their ability to evaluate this obstetric option. Materials and Methods A survey was conducted from January through June 2003 following approval from the institutional review board of Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona. Pregnant women presenting to Phoenix Perinatal Associates offices for maternalfetal medicine consultation or obstetric ultrasound or as a new obstetric patient but not having been to the practice previously were offered participation in the study. Patients agreeing to participate were provided part I of the survey by the patient services coordinator. Part I queried if the patient had ever heard of UCBB or similar terms. Demographic data were also obtained with respect to age, race, ethnic background and formal educational level achieved. After part I was completed, the patient returned it to the patient services coordinator. Patients indicating no knowledge of UCBB were thanked for their participation and not provided with part II of the survey. Patients indicating awareness of the term UCBB or similar terms, indicative of some familiarity with UCBB, were provided with part II of the survey. This was designed to determine how knowledgeable the patient was, what the source of her knowledge was, the patient s awareness of the usefulness of UCBB, if UCBB was planned for the pregnancy and why, and what barriers might prevent the patient from pursuing UCBB; several questions were aimed at determining expectations for being educated on this topic. Patients then returned part II of the survey to the patient services coordinator, who collected all the surveys and provided them to the study investigator. Surveys were available in both English and Spanish. Information from the surveys was then compiled by the author and analyzed using EpiInfo 2001 computer software. Fisher s exact test was utilized to compare groups, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
644 The Journal of Reproductive Medicine Table I Demographic Data Aware of UCBB Demographic n % n (%) p Value Age (yr) 15 25 137 32.3 72 (52.5) 26 50 288 67.7 196 (68.1) 0.002 Parity Nulliparous 145 34.1 83 (57.2) > Para 1 280 65.9 184 (65.7) 0.09 Education < 8th grade 32 7.6 7 (21.9) High school diploma 208 48.9 123 (59.1) < 0.00001 < 8th Grade vs. all other levels College degree 136 32.0 96 (70.6) 0.039 High school vs. college Graduate degree 49 11.5 38 (77.6) 0.456 college vs. graduate school 0.021 High school vs. graduate school Race/ethnicity Caucasian 263 61.9 194 (73.8) < 0.0001 Vs. all racial minorities combined Hispanic 95 22.4 41 (43.2) < 0.0001 vs. Caucasian African American 25 5.9 12 (48) 0.001 vs. Caucasian Native American 12 2.8 3 (25) < 0.0001 vs. Caucasian Asian 6 1.4 3 (50) NS vs. other races/ethnicities Other or not stated 24 5.6 10 (41.6) N = 425. Results Four hundred twenty-five patients participated by completing surveys. Of the total study population of 425 patients, more than a third (37%, n = 157) were unaware of UCBB and therefore excluded from further study. Demographic data are presented in Table I. Among the 268 patients aware of UCBB were significantly more women aged 26 50 as compared to women aged 15 25 (68 vs. 53%, p = 0.002). No significant differences in knowledge were noted based on parity. Patients with lesser degrees of education were less likely to be aware of UCBB when compared to those with higher levels of education (Figure 1). Women with less than an eighth grade education were significantly less likely to be aware of UCBB when compared to women who had graduated from high school (22% vs. 59%, p < 0.0001), those with college educations (22% vs. 71%, p < 0.0001) and those who had graduate degrees (22% vs. 78%, p < 0.0001). Women who were members of a racial or ethnic minority were less likely than Caucasian women to be aware of UCBB (p < 0.0001). Awareness of cord blood banking was indicated by 43.2% of Hispanics, 48% of African Americans and 25% of Native Americans (p 0.001 vs. Caucasians) (Figure 2). Of the 268 patients who indicated awareness of UCBB in answering part I of the survey, the majority (74%) described themselves as minimally informed, while 2.6% (n = 7, all Caucasian) felt extremely knowledgeable. Sixty-two percent of these patients (n = 166) indicated that UCBB was useful, while a significant number of respondents (26.4%) stated that it was experimental only. One hundred ninety-one of these 268 patients (71.3%) Figure 1 UCBB awareness, by education.
Volume 51, Number 8/August 2006 645 Figure 2 UCBB awareness, by ethnicity. were not planning on UCBB, with the most common reasons noted as too expensive (29.8%) and insufficient knowledge (30.9%). Half the patients (50.3%) were misinformed in stating that UCBB was only useful for the child I will deliver, and 10.4% thought UCBB was for research use only. Fiftyseven percent of patients with awareness of UCBB indicated that both cancer and other diseases could be treated with cord blood stem cells, but about 1 in 8 of these patients (12.7%) answered that no diseases have yet been treated with cord blood, but there is hope for the future. Significantly fewer patients had received information on UCBB from a health care provider than from other sources (25.7 vs. 74.3%, p < 0.0001). The majority of patients (53%) learned about UCBB from the news or magazines, while 17.5% and 8.2% obtained this information from a physician or other health care professional, respectively. When asked to complete the statement: I would prefer to receive information on UCBB from whom: 54.1% answered: from a doctor or other staff person, while only 11 patients (5.4% of 205 respondents to this question) preferred to receive information on UCBB from the cord blood banking company. Of 248 respondents, 224 (90.3%) answered yes to the question: Do you expect your obstetrician to be able to answer your questions about UCBB? Finally, when questioned: Has your doctor or nurse spoken to you during this pregnancy about UCBB? 85.7% stated that they had not. All questions were answered with the exception of the last 2, for which there were 248 (92.5%) and 205 (76.5%) respondents of 268 patients given part II of the survey. Discussion The results of this study indicate that patients are poorly informed and lacking education and knowledge regarding UCBB and that the vast majority are not being educated by their obstetric care providers. This is disturbing, given the fact that for patients to be able to take advantage of the single opportunity for the collection of umbilical cord blood stem cells prior to placental delivery, whether for public donation or private family banking, an understanding of the subject is essential. The multitude of conditions for which UCBB is critical may be present in families presenting for obstetric care, and the opportunity for UCBB education is therefore imperative. If physicians are unaware of the benefits of UCBB and/or not informing patients of their options in this regard, and if the patient herself is unaware of the potential benefits, then, clearly, potential therapeutic options can be missed. The findings in this study demonstrate that within the study population, > 1 in 3 patients had not heard of UCBB or similar terms. Of the 63% of patients who did indicate some familiarity with UCBB, nearly 75% described themselves as minimally informed, with only 7 patients (all Caucasian) indicating that they felt extremely knowledgeable. Greater awareness was noted with increased age and greater educational attainment, and lesser awareness was noted among minority races and ethnicities. These findings indicate that significant opportunities for education exist to increase knowledge of UCBB within the obstetric population. The disparity in knowledge by educational level is pertinent given that the diseases that can be treated through UCBB do not discriminate by education achieved. Individuals with lesser degrees of education may miss opportunities for UCBB, unaware of the specific benefits for themselves or family members. Disparity in knowledge by race or ethnicity is particularly relevant given 2 critical issues: first, many of the diseases successfully treated with UCBB occur with greatest frequency amongst ethnic/racial minorities, 16-20 and, second, it is clear that these patients have significantly more difficulty in finding HLA matches for stem cell transplantation given the serious underrepresentation of these populations in bone marrow registries. 2,21 While significantly more patients received infor-
646 The Journal of Reproductive Medicine mation on UCBB from the media rather than from their health care professionals, more than half the patients with some familiarity with UCBB preferred to receive this information from their obstetrician, and the vast majority (> 90%) had an expectation that their obstetricians would be able to provide information on this subject. This is particularly important given the fact that while nearly two thirds of the study population had familiarity with UCBB, their knowledge was largely lacking, and therefore UCBB-educated obstetric care providers are a potential source of pertinent information for patients. Another pertinent finding of the study is that a significant number of patients were not only unfamiliar with UCBB (37%), but those stating familiarity were clearly misinformed regarding this obstetric option. When one considers that of the patients indicating familiarity with UCBB, > 85% had not received information from their obstetric health care providers, that > 25% indicated incorrectly that UCBB is experimental only, > 50% were erroneous in stating that it was only useful for the child I will deliver, and > 1 in 8 stated no diseases have yet been treated, it is quite possible that clinical scenarios in which UCBB could be useful have been and will be overlooked. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion 22 from 1997 stated that Commercial cord blood banks should not represent the service they sell as doing everything possible to ensure the health of children. Parents and grandparents should not be made to feel guilty if they are not eager or able to invest these considerable sums in such a highly speculative venture. Given the significant costs involved in private cord blood banking, using emotional vulnerabilities to market this service seems unreasonable. The publication notes the results of more than 200 transplants and highlights several points pertinent in 1997, with regard to the questionable acceptability of use of cord blood stem cell transplantation in adult recipients. Since the committee opinion was published, however, a number of papers have addressed this issue and have found benefit in this regard, thus speaking to the acceptability of using cord blood stem cells for treating adult patients with leukemia and other disorders 23,24 ; > 6,000 cord blood transplants have reportedly been performed to date. In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a statement 25 pertaining to UCBB and indicated that given the difficulty in estimating the need for using one s own cord blood cells for transplantation, private storage of cord blood as biological insurance is unwise. The AAP statement notes the very low likelihood of use as a reason for not recommending or endorsing private cord blood banking. Previously, rates of likelihood for autologous use have been reported at 4 in 10,000 (0.04%) by age 20. 26 Recent information, however, indicates that by age 70, the likelihood that an individual would require autologous stem cell therapy is 1 in 400 (0.4%). 27 Also, when considering not only the individual from whom the stem cells were collected but also the likelihood of family use (individual, sibling, mother), and given the ever-increasing applications of cord blood stem cell therapies, one could anticipate significantly greater likelihood of use, and therefore private UCBB may be desirable for many families, especially given that outcomes for individuals receiving cord blood stem cells from a related donor are more likely to have improved outcomes in terms of survival and risks of graft versus host disease. 28 The AAP further state 25 that UCBB should be considered if there is a family member with a current or potential need to undergo a stem cell transplantation. The results of this study cast doubt on the current level of knowledge of patients in this regard, and therefore education is essential to ensure that clinical opportunities to treat life-threatening disease amenable to therapy with umbilical cord blood stem cells not be overlooked. The finding that most women did not consider themselves particularly knowledgeable about UCBB and that they hold the opinion that UCBB information should be provided by medical professionals is consistent with a Canadian study, 29 which was limited to English-speaking, primarily Caucasian patients. The current study expanded on these findings in looking at the disparity in UCBB knowledge by ethnicity and race, which is particularly important given the greater likelihood of failed donor matches in these populations, 30 as well as by age and educational level. Other strengths of the current study are the use of a 2-part survey to avoid information bias and the presentation of specific questions to determine what misinformation exists among patients who stated an awareness of UCBB. Limitations of this study included the relatively small numbers of Native Americans and African Americans surveyed; that may be a reflection of reluctance to participate and might be addressed with more directed participation recruit-
Volume 51, Number 8/August 2006 647 ment. Also, the last 2 questions were not all completed, possibly given insufficient time prior to the patient s visit. A mailer was not provided as it was not desired that patients have opportunities to research answers. Prenatal care allows the obstetric health care provider to provide evidenced-based information to patients regarding UCBB and focus on issues of medical and genetic history that may be pertinent to the opportunity of UCBB. Patients in this study indicated that this approach is preferable to leaving the process entirely to the whims and motivations of commercial marketing. Furthermore, it allows the presentation of the altruistic option of public UCBB donation, an option that is acceptable to the vast majority of patients. 29 The issue of public cord blood donation and banking is of such paramount importance, 30 given the difficulty in obtaining hematopoietic stem cell matches for the diverse ethnicities of our population, that Congress recently passed the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2003, which would set aside $50 million dollars in funding in the next 5 years to create a network of cord blood banks that could contain a database of 150,000 genetically diverse cord blood units. 6 The Institute of Medicine recently published a report, as charged by Congress, proposing the creation of a national cord blood stem cell bank program and making specific recommendations for the organization and administration, data management and quality control in a national program that would serve the needs of both donors and patients requiring stem cell transplants. 31 With continuing educational efforts aimed at health care providers and patients alike and the increased availability of publicly banked cord blood samples through a national program of cord blood collection and banking, it is hoped that the lifesaving opportunities of UCBB will not be missed by anyone who may benefit. References 1. 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;321:1174 1178 2. Steinbrook R: The cord-blood-bank controversies. N Engl J Med 2004;351;2255 2256 3. Warwick R, Armitage S: Cord blood banking. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004;18:995 1011 4. National Marrow Donor Program: Diseases treatable by stem cell transplant. http://www.marrow.org/medical/ diseases_treatable_by_stem_cell_transplants.html (retrieved January 1, 2005) 5. A parents guide to cord blood banks with emphasis on how to evaluate private bank services. Diseases treated by hematopoietic stem cell transplants or hematopoietic stem cell infusions. http://www.parentsguidecordblood.com/diseases.html (retrieved January 1, 2005) 6. Friedrich MJ: Growing role for umbilical cord blood. JAMA 2004;292:2453 2454 7. Barker JN, Wagner JE: Umbilical cord blood transplantation: Current practice and future innovations. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003;48:35 43 8. Staba SL, Escolar ML, Poe M, et al: Cord-blood transplants from unrelated donors in patients with Hurler s syndrome. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1960 1969 9. Gang EJ, Hong SH, Jeong JA, et al: In vitro mesengenic potential of human umbilical cord blood-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2004;321:102 108 10. Newman MB, Davis CD, Borlongan CV, et al: Transplantation of human umbilical cord blood cells in the repair of CNS diseases. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2004;4:121 130 11. Perlow JH. Cord blood banking: An ob s perspective. Contemp Ob Gyn 2002;47:31 43 12. Fruchtman SM, Hurlet A, Dracker R, et al: The successful treatment of severe aplastic anemia with autologous cord blood transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2004; 10:741 742 13. Hosono S, Mugishima H, Nakano Y, et al: Autologous cord blood transfusion in an infant with a huge sacrococcygeal teratoma. J Perinat Med 2004;32:187 189 14. David Harris, personal communication 15. Cyrobanks International: Cord blood donation and storage bank. http://www.cryo-intl.com/cordblooddonation.html (retrieved December 31, 2004) 16. Rappaport VJ, Velazquez M, Williams K: Hemoglobinopathies in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2004;31: 287 317, vi 17. Fang J, Huang S, Chen C, et al: Umbilical cord blood transplantation in Chinese children with beta-thalassemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2004;26:185 189 18. Vermylen C: Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in sickle cell disease. Blood Rev 2003;17:163 166 19. Reed W, Walters M, Trachtenberg E, Smith R, et al: Sibling donor cord blood banking for children with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Pathol Mol Med 2001;20:167 174 20. Locatelli F, Rocha V, Reed W, et al: Related umbilical cord blood transplantation in patients with thalassemia and sickle cell disease. Blood 2003;101:2137 2143 21. Kollman C, Abella E, Baitty RL, et al: Assessment of optimal size and composition of the U.S. National Registry of hematopoietic stem cell donors. Transplantation 2004;78:89 95 22. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Routing Storage of Umbilical Cord Blood for Potential Future Transplantation. Washington, DC, ACOG, 1997 23. Laughlin MJ, Eapen M, Rubinstein P, et al: Outcomes after
648 The Journal of Reproductive Medicine transplantation of cord blood or bone marrow from unrelated donors in adults with leukemia. N Engl J Med 2004;351: 2265 2275 24. Rocha V, Labopin M, Sanz G, et al: Transplants of umbilicalcord blood or bone marrow from unrelated donors in adults with acute leukemia. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2276 2285 25. American Academy of Pediatrics: Cord blood banking for potential future transplantation: Subject review. American Academy of Pediatrics Work Group on Cord Blood Banking. Pediatrics 1999;104:116 118 26. Johnson FL: Placental blood transplantation and autologous banking: Caveat emptor. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1997;19: 183 186 27. Nietfeld JJ, Verter F: 6th International Cord Blood Society Congress. Statistics of autologous cord blood storage and use. http://www.cordblood.org/view_presentation/&pres= verter (retrieved December 22, 2004) 28. Gluckman E, Rocha V, Boyer-Chammard A, et al: Outcome of cord-blood transplantation from related and unrelated donors. Eurocord Transplant Group and the European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group. N Engl J Med 1997;337:373 381 29. Fernandez CV, Gordon K, Van Den Hof M, et al: Knowledge and attitudes of pregnant women with regard to collection testing and banking of cord blood stem cells. Cell Med Assoc J 2003;168:695 698 30. Ballen KK, Kurtzberg J, Lane TA, et al: Racial diversity with high nucleated cell counts and CD34 counts achieved in a national network of cord blood banks. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2004;10:269 275 31. Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic Stem Cell Bank Program. Edited by EA Meyer, K Hanna, K Gebbie. Washington, DC, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2005. www.iom.gov and www.nap.edu