Sookhyeon Park1,2, Kexin Guo1,3, Raymond L Heilman4, Emilio D Poggio5, David J Taber6, Christopher L Marsh7, Sunil M Kurian8, Steve Kleiboeker9, Juston Weems9, John Holman10, Lihui Zhao1,3, Rohita Sinha9, Susan Brietigam1, Christabel Rebello1, Michael M Abecassis11,12, John J Friedewald13,2. 1. Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Biostatistics Collaboration Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Division of Transplant Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 7. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Scripps Clinic and Green Hospital, La Jolla, California. 8. Bio-Repository and Bio-Informatics Core, Scripps Health, La Jolla, California. 9. Eurofins US Clinical Diagnostics, Lee's Summit, Missouri. 10. Transplant Genomics, Inc., Mansfield, Massachusetts. 11. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. 12. Department of Immunobiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona. 13. Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois John.Friedewald@nm.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Subclinical acute rejection is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. As an alternative to surveillance biopsies, noninvasive screening has been established with a blood gene expression profile. Donor-derived cellfree DNA (cfDNA) has been used to detect rejection in patients with allograft dysfunction but not tested extensively in stable patients. We hypothesized that we could complement noninvasive diagnostic performance for subclinical rejection by combining a donor-derived cfDNA and a gene expression profile assay. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a post hoc analysis of simultaneous blood gene expression profile and donor-derived cfDNA assays in 428 samples paired with surveillance biopsies from 208 subjects enrolled in an observational clinical trial (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation-08). Assay results were analyzed as binary variables, and then, their continuous scores were combined using logistic regression. The performance of each assay alone and in combination was compared. RESULTS: For diagnosing subclinical rejection, the gene expression profile demonstrated a negative predictive value of 82%, a positive predictive value of 47%, a balanced accuracy of 64%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. The donor-derived cfDNA assay showed similar negative predictive value (84%), positive predictive value (56%), balanced accuracy (68%), and area under the receiver operating curve (0.72). When both assays were negative, negative predictive value increased to 88%. When both assays were positive, positive predictive value increased to 81%. Combining assays using multivariable logistic regression, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.81, significantly higher than the gene expression profile (P<0.001) or donor-derived cfDNA alone (P=0.006). Notably, when cases were separated on the basis of rejection type, the gene expression profile was significantly better at detecting cellular rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.80 versus 0.62; P=0.001), whereas the donor-derived cfDNA was significantly better at detecting antibody-mediated rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.84 versus 0.71; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of blood-based biomarkers can improve detection and provide less invasive monitoring for subclinical rejection. In this study, the gene expression profile detected more cellular rejection, whereas donor-derived cfDNA detected more antibody-mediated rejection.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Subclinical acute rejection is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. As an alternative to surveillance biopsies, noninvasive screening has been established with a blood gene expression profile. Donor-derived cellfree DNA (cfDNA) has been used to detect rejection in patients with allograft dysfunction but not tested extensively in stable patients. We hypothesized that we could complement noninvasive diagnostic performance for subclinical rejection by combining a donor-derived cfDNA and a gene expression profile assay. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a post hoc analysis of simultaneous blood gene expression profile and donor-derived cfDNA assays in 428 samples paired with surveillance biopsies from 208 subjects enrolled in an observational clinical trial (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation-08). Assay results were analyzed as binary variables, and then, their continuous scores were combined using logistic regression. The performance of each assay alone and in combination was compared. RESULTS: For diagnosing subclinical rejection, the gene expression profile demonstrated a negative predictive value of 82%, a positive predictive value of 47%, a balanced accuracy of 64%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. The donor-derived cfDNA assay showed similar negative predictive value (84%), positive predictive value (56%), balanced accuracy (68%), and area under the receiver operating curve (0.72). When both assays were negative, negative predictive value increased to 88%. When both assays were positive, positive predictive value increased to 81%. Combining assays using multivariable logistic regression, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.81, significantly higher than the gene expression profile (P<0.001) or donor-derived cfDNA alone (P=0.006). Notably, when cases were separated on the basis of rejection type, the gene expression profile was significantly better at detecting cellular rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.80 versus 0.62; P=0.001), whereas the donor-derived cfDNA was significantly better at detecting antibody-mediated rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.84 versus 0.71; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of blood-based biomarkers can improve detection and provide less invasive monitoring for subclinical rejection. In this study, the gene expression profile detected more cellular rejection, whereas donor-derived cfDNA detected more antibody-mediated rejection.
Authors: Manuel Arias; Daniel Serón; Ignacio Herrero; David N Rush; Chris Wiebe; Peter W Nickerson; Piedad Ussetti; Emilio Rodrigo; Maria-Angeles de Cos Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Darren M Lee; Michael M Abecassis; John J Friedewald; Stanley Rose; M Roy First Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Michael E Seifert; Megan V Yanik; Daniel I Feig; Vera Hauptfeld-Dolejsek; Elizabeth C Mroczek-Musulman; David R Kelly; Frida Rosenblum; Roslyn B Mannon Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Tara K Sigdel; Felipe Acosta Archila; Tudor Constantin; Sarah A Prins; Juliane Liberto; Izabella Damm; Parhom Towfighi; Samantha Navarro; Eser Kirkizlar; Zachary P Demko; Allison Ryan; Styrmir Sigurjonsson; Reuben D Sarwal; Szu-Chuan Hseish; Chitranon Chan-On; Bernhard Zimmermann; Paul R Billings; Solomon Moshkevich; Minnie M Sarwal Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Michael E Seifert; Gaurav Agarwal; Miriam Bernard; Ellen Kasik; S Sikandar Raza; Huma Fatima; Robert S Gaston; Vera Hauptfeld-Dolejsek; Bruce A Julian; Clifton E Kew; Vineeta Kumar; Shikha Mehta; Song Ong; Frida Rosenblum; Graham Towns; Roslyn B Mannon Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-01-26
Authors: Alexandre Loupy; Mark Haas; Candice Roufosse; Maarten Naesens; Benjamin Adam; Marjan Afrouzian; Enver Akalin; Nada Alachkar; Serena Bagnasco; Jan U Becker; Lynn D Cornell; Marian C Clahsen-van Groningen; Anthony J Demetris; Duska Dragun; Jean-Paul Duong van Huyen; Alton B Farris; Agnes B Fogo; Ian W Gibson; Denis Glotz; Juliette Gueguen; Zeljko Kikic; Nicolas Kozakowski; Edward Kraus; Carmen Lefaucheur; Helen Liapis; Roslyn B Mannon; Robert A Montgomery; Brian J Nankivell; Volker Nickeleit; Peter Nickerson; Marion Rabant; Lorraine Racusen; Parmjeet Randhawa; Blaise Robin; Ivy A Rosales; Ruth Sapir-Pichhadze; Carrie A Schinstock; Daniel Seron; Harsharan K Singh; Rex N Smith; Mark D Stegall; Adriana Zeevi; Kim Solez; Robert B Colvin; Michael Mengel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Marta Jiménez-Blanco Bravo; Laura Pérez-Gómez; Francisco J Hernández-Pérez; Carlos Arellano-Serrano; Mario Torres-Sanabria; Manuel Gómez-Bueno; Juan F Oteo-Domínguez; Susana Mingo-Santos; Javier Segovia-Cubero Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-06