4.7 Article

Cell-Free DNA and Active Rejection in Kidney Allografts

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 2221-2232

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2016091034

关键词

-

资金

  1. CareDx, Inc., Brisbane, CA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Histologic analysis of the allograft biopsy specimen is the standard method used to differentiate rejection from other injury in kidney transplants. Donor-derived cell-free DNA(dd-cfDNA) is a noninvasive test of allograft injury that may enable more frequent, quantitative, and safer assessment of allograft rejection and injury status. To investigate this possibility, we prospectively collected blood specimens at scheduled intervals and at the time of clinically indicated biopsies. In 102 kidney recipients, we measured plasma levels of dd-cfDNA and correlated the levels with allograft rejection status ascertained by histology in 107 biopsy specimens. The dd-cfDNA level discriminated between biopsy specimens showing any rejection (T cell-mediated rejection or antibody-mediated rejection [ABMR]) and controls (no rejection histologically), P<0.001 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.61 to 0.86). Positive and negative predictive values for active rejection at a cutoff of 1.0% dd-cfDNA were 61% and 84%, respectively. The AUC for discriminating ABMR from samples without ABMR was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.97). Positive and negative predictive values for ABMR at a cutoff of 1.0% dd-cfDNA were 44% and 96%, respectively. Median dd-cfDNA was 2.9% (ABMR), 1.2% (T cell-mediated types >= IB), 0.2% (T cell-mediated type IA), and 0.3% in controls (P=0.05 for T cell-mediated rejection types >= IB versus controls). Thus, dd-cfDNA may be used to assess allograft rejection and injury; dd-cfDNA levels,1% reflect the absence of active rejection (T cell-mediated type >= IB or ABMR) and levels >1% indicate a probability of active rejection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据