13.02 Application of Donor-Derived DNA and Transcriptome in Diagnosis of Kidney Transplant Rejection

M. Moein1, J. P. Settineri1, H. Suleiman1, J. Sidhu1, S. Papa1, R. Hod Dvorai1, A. Bahreini1, A. Luo1, R. Saidi1  1SUNY Upstate Medical University, Surgery/Transplantation, Syracuse, NY, USA

Introduction:  Transcriptomic kidney profile testing and donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) testing are newly introduced and have been shown to provide an early marker of graft inflammation during the post-transplant period. This study focused on utilizing clinical data to evaluate the application of the transcriptomic kidney profile test and dd-cfDNA test in terms of rejection detection by comparing the tests results to the kidney biopsy.

Methods:  We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all adult kidney transplant patients at a single center from 1 January 2014 to 1 December 2022. Our inclusion criteria were patients who have a concurrent transcriptomic kidney profile test and kidney biopsy results.

Results: The overall number of kidney transplant rejections identified by biopsy was 33 (24.3%) for the whole cohort. 14 (42.4%) ABMR, 12 (36.4%) TCMR, and 7 (21.2%) mix ABMR and TCMR were diagnosed. The transcriptomic kidney profile test had a 52.83% positive predictive value (PPV) and 92.77% negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosis of a rejection in the kidney allograft. In our study cohort, the transcriptomic kidney profile test showed an 82.35% sensitivity and 75.49% specificity. The dd-cfDNA test had a 54.83% positive predictive value (PPV) and 86.45% negative predictive value (NPV) for diagnosis of a rejection in the kidney allograft. In our study cohort, the dd-cfDNA test showed a 56.66% sensitivity and 85.56% specificity. The combined positive transcriptomic kidney profile and dd-cfDNA tests could detect 17 (51.51%) of the total 33 rejections. Negative transcriptomic kidney profile and dd-cfDNA tests were observed in 66 (70.21%) of the biopsies that did not report a rejection.

Conclusion: Although there are certain discrepancies and limitations, we believe that the transcriptomic profile test and dd-cfDNA test can be used for detecting rejections at an early stage to help shape patient management. The dd-cfDNA test, in particular, helps avoid the invasive interval biopsies. Following a negative test result, the probability that the patient is not having any form of rejection is 86.45%. The transcriptomic profile test’s high sensitivity and a specificity allow us to pick up cases that may have otherwise not been detected as rejection on biopsy.