单中心经验比较两种临床可用的供体来源细胞游离DNA测试和文献综述

Q4 Medicine
Erik Lawrence Lum , Karid Nieves-Borrero , Piyavadee Homkrailas , Sabrina Lee , Gabriel Danovitch , Suphamai Bunnapradist
{"title":"单中心经验比较两种临床可用的供体来源细胞游离DNA测试和文献综述","authors":"Erik Lawrence Lum ,&nbsp;Karid Nieves-Borrero ,&nbsp;Piyavadee Homkrailas ,&nbsp;Sabrina Lee ,&nbsp;Gabriel Danovitch ,&nbsp;Suphamai Bunnapradist","doi":"10.1016/j.tpr.2021.100079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The introduction of assays for donor-derived cell-free DNA into clinical transplant medicine has provided an additional method to assess allograft health. We compared the performance of two of these assays, Prospera™ and AlloSure®. A series of 15 paired-samples from individual kidney transplant recipients were tested using both Prospera™ and AlloSure® assays simultaneously. Test performances were determined using the company cutoff of &gt;1% to indicate active rejection. Additional analysis was also performed using a cutoff of 0.5%. Acute rejections were all confirmed by biopsy. There was one discordant result for 15 paired-samples when using a cutoff level of 1%, and results were concordant using a cutoff level of 0.5%. Seven biopsy were performed, six of which showed rejection. Using cutoff of 1%, Prospera™ identified 80% (4/5) of T cell-mediated rejections (TCMR) compared to 60% for AlloSure® (3/5). Both assays recognized the only case of antibody-mediated rejection. When using cutoff level of 0.5%, both assays correctly identified all cases of rejection. In this cohort, the two tests showed different sensitivities when using the validated cutoff of 1% dd-cfDNA, and the same sensitivity when using a lower cutoff of 0.5%. The result accuracy was confirmed by kidney biopsy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37786,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Reports","volume":"6 3","pages":"Article 100079"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.tpr.2021.100079","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single center experience comparing two clinically available donor derived cell free DNA tests and review of literature\",\"authors\":\"Erik Lawrence Lum ,&nbsp;Karid Nieves-Borrero ,&nbsp;Piyavadee Homkrailas ,&nbsp;Sabrina Lee ,&nbsp;Gabriel Danovitch ,&nbsp;Suphamai Bunnapradist\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tpr.2021.100079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The introduction of assays for donor-derived cell-free DNA into clinical transplant medicine has provided an additional method to assess allograft health. We compared the performance of two of these assays, Prospera™ and AlloSure®. A series of 15 paired-samples from individual kidney transplant recipients were tested using both Prospera™ and AlloSure® assays simultaneously. Test performances were determined using the company cutoff of &gt;1% to indicate active rejection. Additional analysis was also performed using a cutoff of 0.5%. Acute rejections were all confirmed by biopsy. There was one discordant result for 15 paired-samples when using a cutoff level of 1%, and results were concordant using a cutoff level of 0.5%. Seven biopsy were performed, six of which showed rejection. Using cutoff of 1%, Prospera™ identified 80% (4/5) of T cell-mediated rejections (TCMR) compared to 60% for AlloSure® (3/5). Both assays recognized the only case of antibody-mediated rejection. When using cutoff level of 0.5%, both assays correctly identified all cases of rejection. In this cohort, the two tests showed different sensitivities when using the validated cutoff of 1% dd-cfDNA, and the same sensitivity when using a lower cutoff of 0.5%. The result accuracy was confirmed by kidney biopsy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transplantation Reports\",\"volume\":\"6 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100079\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.tpr.2021.100079\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transplantation Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245195962100007X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245195962100007X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

将供体来源的无细胞DNA检测引入临床移植医学,为评估同种异体移植健康提供了一种额外的方法。我们比较了普洛斯佩拉™和AlloSure®两种检测方法的性能。来自个体肾移植受者的一系列15个配对样本同时使用Prospera™和AlloSure®检测。测试性能是用公司截止值1%来确定的,表示主动拒绝。还使用0.5%的截止值进行了额外的分析。急性排斥反应均经活检证实。当使用1%的截断水平时,15个配对样本有一个不一致的结果,使用0.5%的截断水平时结果一致。进行了7例活检,其中6例出现排斥反应。使用1%的截止值,Prospera™识别出80%(4/5)的T细胞介导的排斥反应(TCMR),而AlloSure®为60%(3/5)。两种检测方法都识别出抗体介导的排斥反应。当使用0.5%的截止水平时,两种检测方法都能正确识别出所有排斥病例。在该队列中,当使用1% dd-cfDNA的有效截止值时,这两种测试显示出不同的灵敏度,而当使用0.5%的较低截止值时,这两种测试显示出相同的灵敏度。肾活检证实了结果的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Single center experience comparing two clinically available donor derived cell free DNA tests and review of literature

The introduction of assays for donor-derived cell-free DNA into clinical transplant medicine has provided an additional method to assess allograft health. We compared the performance of two of these assays, Prospera™ and AlloSure®. A series of 15 paired-samples from individual kidney transplant recipients were tested using both Prospera™ and AlloSure® assays simultaneously. Test performances were determined using the company cutoff of >1% to indicate active rejection. Additional analysis was also performed using a cutoff of 0.5%. Acute rejections were all confirmed by biopsy. There was one discordant result for 15 paired-samples when using a cutoff level of 1%, and results were concordant using a cutoff level of 0.5%. Seven biopsy were performed, six of which showed rejection. Using cutoff of 1%, Prospera™ identified 80% (4/5) of T cell-mediated rejections (TCMR) compared to 60% for AlloSure® (3/5). Both assays recognized the only case of antibody-mediated rejection. When using cutoff level of 0.5%, both assays correctly identified all cases of rejection. In this cohort, the two tests showed different sensitivities when using the validated cutoff of 1% dd-cfDNA, and the same sensitivity when using a lower cutoff of 0.5%. The result accuracy was confirmed by kidney biopsy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transplantation Reports
Transplantation Reports Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
101 days
期刊介绍: To provide to national and regional audiences experiences unique to them or confirming of broader concepts originating in large controlled trials. All aspects of organ, tissue and cell transplantation clinically and experimentally. Transplantation Reports will provide in-depth representation of emerging preclinical, impactful and clinical experiences. -Original basic or clinical science articles that represent initial limited experiences as preliminary reports. -Clinical trials of therapies previously well documented in large trials but now tested in limited, special, ethnic or clinically unique patient populations. -Case studies that confirm prior reports but have occurred in patients displaying unique clinical characteristics such as ethnicities or rarely associated co-morbidities. Transplantation Reports offers these benefits: -Fast and fair peer review -Rapid, article-based publication -Unrivalled visibility and exposure for your research -Immediate, free and permanent access to your paper on Science Direct -Immediately citable using the article DOI
×
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