4.0 Review

Clinical Rationale for a Routine Testing Schedule Using Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA After Kidney Transplantation

Journal

ANNALS OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 26, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/AOT.932249

Keywords

Biomarkers; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; Graft Rejection; Immunologic Surveillance; Kidney Transplantation; Pathology; Molecular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Kidney transplant recipients require meticulous monitoring for allograft health, with conventional biomarkers being lagging and invasive. Donor-derived cell-free DNA serves as a sensitive noninvasive indicator for early intervention and improved long-term outcomes in kidney transplantation.
Kidney transplant recipients require meticulous clinical and laboratory surveillance to monitor allograft health. Conventional biomarkers, including serum creatinine and proteinuria, are lagging indicators of allograft injury, often rising only after significant and potentially irreversible damage has occurred. Immunosuppressive medication levels can be followed, but their utility is largely limited to guiding dosing changes or assessing adherence. Kidney biopsy, the criterion standard for the diagnosis and characterization of injury, is invasive and thus poorly suited for frequent surveillance. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) is a sensitive, noninvasive, leading indicator of allograft injury, which offers the opportunity for expedited intervention and can improve long-term allograft outcomes. This article describes the clinical rationale for a routine testing schedule utilizing dd-cfDNA surveillance at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 12 during the first year following kidney transplantation and quarterly thereafter. These time points coincide with major immunologic transition points after transplantation and provide clinicians with molecular information to help inform decision making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available