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 , Karid Nieves-Borrero , Piyavadee Homkrailas , Sabrina Lee , Gabriel Danovitch , 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 >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 , Karid Nieves-Borrero , Piyavadee Homkrailas , Sabrina Lee , Gabriel Danovitch , 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 >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}
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.
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