Serial Peripheral Blood Gene Expression Profiling to Assess Immune Quiescence in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Stable Renal Function

V Ram Peddi, Parul S Patel, Courtney Schieve, Stan Rose, M Roy First, V Ram Peddi, Parul S Patel, Courtney Schieve, Stan Rose, M Roy First

Abstract

BACKGROUND TruGraf is a blood-based biomarker test that measures differential expression of a collection of genes that have been shown to correlate with surveillance biopsy results. However, in the majority of U.S. transplant centers, surveillance biopsies are not performed. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical validity of TruGraf in stable kidney transplant recipients and to demonstrate the potential clinical utility of serial TruGraf testing in a center not utilizing surveillance biopsies. MATERIAL AND METHODS Serum creatinine levels, TruGraf testing at multiple time points, and subsequent clinical follow-up were obtained for 28 patients. RESULTS Overall concordance of TruGraf results, when compared with independent clinical assessment of testing, was 77% (54/70) for all tests; 79% (22/28) for test 1, 75% (21/28) for test 2, and 79% (11/14) for test 3. The negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.0%. Analysis of clinical utility indicated that 77% of TruGraf results would have been useful in patient management. CONCLUSIONS Our results indicate the value of serial TruGraf testing in those transplant centers that do not perform surveillance biopsies as part of their standard of care. The high negative predictive value indicates the ability of TruGraf to confirm immune quiescence with a high degree of probability in patients with a Transplant eXcellence (TX) result, without the need to perform a surveillance biopsy.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interests

Courtney Schieve, Stan Rose and M. Roy First are full-time employees at Transplant Genomics, Inc., who developed the TruGraf test.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Serum Creatinine levels (mg/dL) and TruGraf results in patients with 2 sequential tests Cohort A (A) and 3 sequential tests Cohort B (B). Green – True Negative; Blue – True Positive; Red – False Negative; Grey – False Positive.

References

    1. Rush D, Nickerson P, Gough J, et al. Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: A randomized study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998;9:2129–34.
    1. El Ters M, Grande JP, Keddis MT, et al. Kidney allograft survival after acute rejection, the value of follow-up biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:2334–41.
    1. Loupy A, Vernerey D, Tinel C, et al. Subclinical rejection phenotypes at 1 year post-transplant and outcome of kidney allografts. Am J Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:1721–31.
    1. Mehta R, Cherikh W, Sood P, Hariharan S. Kidney allograft surveillance biopsy practices across US Transplant Centers: A UNOS survey. Clin Transplant. 2017;31:e12945.
    1. Mengel M, Sis B, Halloran PF. SWOT analysis of Banff: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the International Banff consensus process and classification system for renal allograft pathology. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2221–26.
    1. Friedewald JJ, Kurian SM, Heilman LR, et al. Development and clinical validity of a novel blood-based molecular biomarker for subclinical acute rejection following kidney transplant. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(1):98–109.
    1. Mehta R, Bhusal S, Randhawa P, et al. Short-term adverse effects of early subclinical allograft inflammation in kidney transplant recipients with a rapid steroid withdrawal protocol. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(7):1710–17.
    1. Seifert ME, Yanik MV, Feig DI, et al. Subclinical inflammation phenotypes and long-term outcomes after pediatric kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(9):2189–99.
    1. Nankivell BJ, Agrawal N, Sharma A, et al. The clinical and pathological significance of borderline T cell – mediated rejection. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(5):1452–63.
    1. First MR, Pierry D, McNulty M, et al. Analytical performance validation of a molecular diagnostic signature in kidney transplant recipients. Journal of Transplantation Technologies & Research. 2017;7(3)
    1. First MR, Lee D, Lewis P, Rose S. An economic analysis of the cost effectiveness of blood gene expression profiling in kidney transplant recipients. J Health & Med Econ. 2017:3.
    1. First MR, Whisenant T, Friedewald JJ, et al. Clinical Utility of Peripheral Blood Gene Expression Profiling of Kidney Transplant Recipients to Assess the need for Surveillance Biopsies in Subjects with Stable Renal Function. Journal of Transplantation Technologies & Research. 2017;7(3):177.
    1. First MR, Peddi VR, Mannon R, et al. Investigator assessment of the utility of the TruGraf molecular diagnostic test in clinical practice. Transplant Proc. 2019;51(3):729–33.
    1. Marsh CL, Kurian SM, Rice JC, et al. Application of TruGraf®: A novel molecular biomarker for managing kidney transplant recipients with stable renal function. Transplant Proc. 2019;51(3):722–28.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, Moons KG. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: The clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1636–43.
    1. Peabody JW, Shimkhada R, Tong KB, Zubiller MB. New thinking on clinical utility: Hard lessons for molecular diagnostics. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20:750–56.
    1. Joseph L, Cankovic M, Caughron S, et al. The spectrum of clinical utilities in molecular pathology testing procedures for inherited conditions and cancer: A report of the association for molecular pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18:605–19.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren