Racial Variation of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Oliver G Ralph, Michael D Williams, Edie Y Chan, Oyedolamu Olaitan
{"title":"Racial Variation of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Kidney Transplant Recipients.","authors":"Oliver G Ralph, Michael D Williams, Edie Y Chan, Oyedolamu Olaitan","doi":"10.1177/15269248241304787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is a need for a noninvasive, affordable, sensitive, and specific biomarker to diagnose early acute rejection, to negate the need for frequent biopsies. Dd-cfDNA is a powerful adjunct yet there is limited data on the ethnic differences in its values. There is anecdotal evidence that dd-cfDNA values at rejection may be higher in Black as compared to non-Black recipients. This study aims to add to this literature while defining such variability and comparing it to previously validated cutoffs for dd-cfDNA of 0.5% or 1%.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a single-center retrospective observational study of patients who underwent graft biopsies with a preceding, paired, dd-cfDNA value. Recipients were separated into White, Black, and Hispanic racial and ethnic groups, and dd-cfDNA values at rejection versus nonrejection were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With 0.5% and 1% cutoffs, false negative rates for rejection were 13% and 22%, respectively. The false positive rate was 38.4%. 12.2% of Black recipients, 11.8% of Hispanic recipients, and 44% of White recipients had rejection with a negative AlloSure<sup>®</sup>. Values >0.5% corresponded to histologic rejection in 61.5% of Black, 66.7% of White, and 56.3% of Hispanic recipients. Antibody-mediated rejection occurred in 65.5% of rejection cases in Black recipients, while exhibiting the lowest rate of T-cell-mediated rejection. Dd-cfDNA values gave an accurate diagnosis of rejection in 52.8% of recipients with AMR versus 19.3% in TCMR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that dd-cfDNA was applicable to Black recipients with a robust ability to detect antibody-mediated rejection, as compared to White and Hispanic recipients.</p>","PeriodicalId":20671,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":"15269248241304787"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248241304787","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: There is a need for a noninvasive, affordable, sensitive, and specific biomarker to diagnose early acute rejection, to negate the need for frequent biopsies. Dd-cfDNA is a powerful adjunct yet there is limited data on the ethnic differences in its values. There is anecdotal evidence that dd-cfDNA values at rejection may be higher in Black as compared to non-Black recipients. This study aims to add to this literature while defining such variability and comparing it to previously validated cutoffs for dd-cfDNA of 0.5% or 1%.

Design: This was a single-center retrospective observational study of patients who underwent graft biopsies with a preceding, paired, dd-cfDNA value. Recipients were separated into White, Black, and Hispanic racial and ethnic groups, and dd-cfDNA values at rejection versus nonrejection were compared.

Results: With 0.5% and 1% cutoffs, false negative rates for rejection were 13% and 22%, respectively. The false positive rate was 38.4%. 12.2% of Black recipients, 11.8% of Hispanic recipients, and 44% of White recipients had rejection with a negative AlloSure®. Values >0.5% corresponded to histologic rejection in 61.5% of Black, 66.7% of White, and 56.3% of Hispanic recipients. Antibody-mediated rejection occurred in 65.5% of rejection cases in Black recipients, while exhibiting the lowest rate of T-cell-mediated rejection. Dd-cfDNA values gave an accurate diagnosis of rejection in 52.8% of recipients with AMR versus 19.3% in TCMR.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that dd-cfDNA was applicable to Black recipients with a robust ability to detect antibody-mediated rejection, as compared to White and Hispanic recipients.

肾移植受者供体来源的无细胞DNA的种族差异。
需要一种无创、经济、敏感和特异性的生物标志物来诊断早期急性排斥反应,以消除频繁活检的需要。Dd-cfDNA是一个强大的辅助工具,但关于其价值观的种族差异的数据有限。有轶事证据表明,与非黑人受体相比,黑人受体排斥时的dd-cfDNA值可能更高。本研究旨在补充这一文献,同时定义这种可变性,并将其与之前验证的dd-cfDNA的0.5%或1%的截止值进行比较。设计:这是一项单中心回顾性观察性研究,研究对象为接受移植活检且具有先前配对dd-cfDNA值的患者。接受者被分为白人、黑人和西班牙裔种族和族裔群体,并比较排斥反应和非排斥反应时的dd-cfDNA值。结果:在0.5%和1%的临界值下,拒绝率分别为13%和22%。假阳性率为38.4%。12.2%的黑人受体、11.8%的西班牙裔受体和44%的白人受体出现了AlloSure阴性的排斥反应。61.5%的黑人、66.7%的白人和56.3%的西班牙裔受体的组织学排斥反应值为>0.5%。黑人受体中抗体介导的排斥反应发生率为65.5%,而t细胞介导的排斥反应发生率最低。在AMR受者中,Dd-cfDNA值对排斥反应的准确诊断为52.8%,而在TCMR受者中为19.3%。结论:本研究表明,与白人和西班牙裔受体相比,dd-cfDNA适用于黑人受体,具有检测抗体介导的排斥反应的强大能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Progress in Transplantation
Progress in Transplantation SURGERY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Transplantation (PIT) is the official journal of NATCO, The Organization for Transplant Professionals. Journal Partners include: Australasian Transplant Coordinators Association and Society for Transplant Social Workers. PIT reflects the multi-disciplinary team approach to procurement and clinical aspects of organ and tissue transplantation by providing a professional forum for exchange of the continually changing body of knowledge in transplantation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信