Celution System Seminar ASPI 25 October 2008 Fat Transfer with Adipose-derived Stem and Regenerative Cells for Breast Reconstruction

ADRCs

How it works

Reconstructive Surgery after Mastectomy American Society of Plastic Surgeon Bleeding, infection, poor healing of incisions, and anesthesia risks General risk -Gradual procedure over 4-6 months, tissue expansion -Capsular contracture  firm -Implant Rupture No scar in other place Implant -Partial or complete loss of the flap and a loss of sensation at both the donor and reconstruction site -Produce scar in other place Standard therapy Latissimus dorsi flap -Partial or complete loss of the flap and a loss of sensation at both the donor and reconstruction site -Produce scar in other place Standard therapy TRAM flap Disadvantages Advantages Procedure

TRAM flap Latissimus dorsi flap Tissue expansion in breast implantation procedure American Society of Plastic Surgeon

RESTORE I Trial Pre-Op 12 Months Post-Op Dr. Sugimachi, Dr. Kitamura Kyushu Central Hospital Fukuoka, Japan

RESTORE I Trial Pre-Op 12 Months Post-Op Dr. Sugimachi, Dr. Kitamura Kyushu Central Hospital Fukuoka, Japan

6.1 16.0 14.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Pre One month One year P ＜ 0.05 P ＝ NS P ＜ 0.05 mm Restore I: Breast Tissue Thickness Dr. Sugimachi, Dr. Kitamura Kyushu Central Hospital Fukuoka, Japan * ultrasound

Not satisfied 4 (21.1 %) Satisfied 7 (36.9 %) Very satisfied 8 (42.1 %) N ＝ 19 Restore I: Patient Satisfaction Survey Dr. Sugimachi, Dr. Kitamura Kyushu Central Hospital Fukuoka, Japan 12 Months

Every woman is created by God beautifully, “big" or "small" depends on how a woman herself sees in her. If there is any dissatisfaction in her body, why not try to change it? Especially she, who had no choice but had to lose hers because of disease. Thank God, He has created every single cell in the human body to be useful, including restoring her beauty and regaining her confidence Thank you

How long does it take Celution System to process the ADRCs?

Comparison of 3 sources of MSC Kern, Stem Cells 2006;24:1294 – 1301 p<0.001 7.10% 64.20% towards 2 lineages p<0.001 89.30% 28.60% towards all 3 lineages Multilineage differentiation capacity of BM-CFU-F & AT-CFU-F 71.40% 0 71.40% Differentiation capacities into all three lineages All samples show cartilage-type phenotype with chondrocyte-like lacunae Chondrogenic differentiation capacity p<0.01 94% 0 100% Adopogenic differentiation capacity Non significant 71.40% 100% 78.8% Osteogenic differentiation capacity Multilineage differentiation potential P8 P10 P7 Maximal passage in the middle highest lowest Population doubling numbers p=0.02 between AT & UCB 5.60% 43.60% 23.60% Senescence ratio up to passage 2 Expansion characteristic p<0.001 557±673 0.002±0.004 83±61 Number of CFU-F Isolation p AT UCB BM

Expression of Surface Proteins of MSCs derived from BM, UCB & AT