Cell-Free DNA: Proceed, but with Caution

Alloimmune risk assessment for antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation: A practical proposal

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. Although an improvement in graft survival has been observed in the last decades with the use of different immunosuppressive drugs, this is still limited in time with antibody-mediated rejection being a main cause of graft-loss. Immune monitoring and risk assessment of antibody-mediated rejection before and after kidney transplantation with useful biomarkers is key to tailoring treatments to achieve the best outcomes. Here, we provide a review of the rationale and several accessible tools for immune monitoring, from the most classic to the modern ones. Finally, we end up discussing a practical proposal for alloimmune risk assessment in kidney transplantation, including histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA) and non-HLA antibodies, HLA molecular mismatch analysis and characterization of peripheral blood immune cells.

Donor-derived cell-free DNA and renal allograft rejection in surveillance biopsies and indication biopsies

To evaluate the role of circulating dd-cfDNA in allograft surveillance in immunologically high-risk patients, a retrospective cross-sectional study of 261 kidney transplant recipients who underwent outpatient allograft biopsy at our center between September 2020 and August 2021 was performed. Of the 236 dd-cfDNA results included, 37 samples were obtained at the time of a surveillance biopsy in sensitized recipients and 199 at the time of a clinically indicated biopsy. The median serum creatinine at the time of the biopsy was 1.3 mg/dl and 2.1 mg/dl for surveillance biopsies and clinically indicated biopsies, respectively (p<0.001). Rejection was diagnosed in 27% of surveillance biopsies and 29% of clinically indicated biopsies. Among surveillance biopsies, sensitivity and specificity to detect rejection were 0% and 89%, respectively, and among clinically indicated biopsies they were 28% and 96%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity to detect antibody-mediated rejection were 0% and 91% among surveillance biopsies and 50% and 94% among clinically indicated biopsies. Nine biopsies without rejection findings had corresponding dd-cfDNA of ≥1%. Our data does not support dd-cfDNA as a biomarker for kidney allograft rejection, even in immunologically high-risk patients in the absence of graft dysfunction. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Combining Blood Gene Expression and Cellfree DNA to Diagnose Subclinical Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Subclinical acute rejection is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. As an alternative to surveillance biopsies, noninvasive screening has been established with a blood gene expression profile. Donor-derived cellfree DNA (cfDNA) has been used to detect rejection in patients with allograft dysfunction but not tested extensively in stable patients. We hypothesized that we could complement noninvasive diagnostic performance for subclinical rejection by combining a donor-derived cfDNA and a gene expression profile assay.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a post hoc analysis of simultaneous blood gene expression profile and donor-derived cfDNA assays in 428 samples paired with surveillance biopsies from 208 subjects enrolled in an observational clinical trial (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation-08). Assay results were analyzed as binary variables, and then, their continuous scores were combined using logistic regression. The performance of each assay alone and in combination was compared.

RESULTS

For diagnosing subclinical rejection, the gene expression profile demonstrated a negative predictive value of 82%, a positive predictive value of 47%, a balanced accuracy of 64%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. The donor-derived cfDNA assay showed similar negative predictive value (84%), positive predictive value (56%), balanced accuracy (68%), and area under the receiver operating curve (0.72). When both assays were negative, negative predictive value increased to 88%. When both assays were positive, positive predictive value increased to 81%. Combining assays using multivariable logistic regression, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.81, significantly higher than the gene expression profile (P<0.001) or donor-derived cfDNA alone (P=0.006). Notably, when cases were separated on the basis of rejection type, the gene expression profile was significantly better at detecting cellular rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.80 versus 0.62; P=0.001), whereas the donor-derived cfDNA was significantly better at detecting antibody-mediated rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.84 versus 0.71; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of blood-based biomarkers can improve detection and provide less invasive monitoring for subclinical rejection. In this study, the gene expression profile detected more cellular rejection, whereas donor-derived cfDNA detected more antibody-mediated rejection.

Donor-derived Cell-free DNA in Solid-organ Transplant Diagnostics: Indications, Limitations, and Future Directions

The last few years have seen an explosion in clinical research focusing on the use of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) in solid-organ transplants (SOT). Although most of the literature published so far focuses on kidney transplants, there are several recent as well as ongoing research studies on heart, lung, pancreas, and liver transplants. Though initially studied as a noninvasive means of identifying subclinical or acute rejection in SOT, it is rapidly becoming clear that instead of being a specific marker for allograft rejection, dd-cfDNA is more appropriately described as a marker of severe injury, although the most common cause of this injury is allograft rejection. Multiple studies in kidney transplants have shown that although sensitivity for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection is excellent, it is less so for T-cell-mediated rejection. It is possible that combining dd-cfDNA with other novel urine- or blood-based biomarkers may increase the sensitivity for the diagnosis of rejection. Irrespective of the cause, though, elevated dd-cfDNA seems to portend adverse allograft prognosis and formation of de novo donor-specific antibody. Although current data do not lend themselves to a clear conclusion, ongoing studies may reveal the utility of serial surveillance for the management of SOT as following levels of dd-cfDNA over time may provide windows of opportunity to intervene early and before irreversible allograft injury. Finally, cost-effectiveness studies will be needed to guide the ideal incorporation of dd-cfDNA into routine clinical practice.