The Molecular Diagnosis Might Be Clinically Useful in Discrepant Kidney Allograft Biopsy Findings: An Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Journal
Transplantation
ISSN: 1534-6080
Titre abrégé: Transplantation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0132144
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2023
01 02 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
20
9
2022
medline:
28
1
2023
entrez:
19
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) may overcome histology shortcomings. Previous studies have simply examined discrepant findings but have not attempted to determine clinical endpoints. To measure performance, clinical outcomes are strongly required. This single-center cohort study described discrepancies between MMDx and histology from 51 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and analyzed 72 indication biopsies, including 21 follow-up biopsies. Clinical performance was assessed by a combined endpoint of graft failure, rejection on follow-up biopsy, de novo donor-specific antibody, and improvement of kidney allograft function upon antirejection treatment. MMDx agreed in 33 (65%) and differed in 18 (35%) of 51 KTRs. Most discrepancies occurred in biopsies called no rejection by MMDx and rejection by histology (15/24, 63%). In contrast, in biopsies called rejection by MMDx, 3 were classified as no rejection by histology (3/27, 11%). Discrepant findings between MMDx and histology occurred following delayed graft function and MMDx from biopsies with a low percentage of cortex. Among 15 biopsies classified as no rejection by MMDx but rejection by histology, the clinical course suggested no rejection in 9 cases. Six KTRs reached the endpoint, showing predominant t ≥ 2 lesions. The most often occurring discrepancy is rejection by histology but no rejection by MMDx. As more KTRs do not meet the combined endpoint for rejection, MMDx might be clinically useful in these discrepant cases. Although strong histological findings have priority in indicating the treatment, clinical implementation of MMDx could strengthen treatment strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) may overcome histology shortcomings. Previous studies have simply examined discrepant findings but have not attempted to determine clinical endpoints. To measure performance, clinical outcomes are strongly required.
METHODS
This single-center cohort study described discrepancies between MMDx and histology from 51 kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and analyzed 72 indication biopsies, including 21 follow-up biopsies. Clinical performance was assessed by a combined endpoint of graft failure, rejection on follow-up biopsy, de novo donor-specific antibody, and improvement of kidney allograft function upon antirejection treatment.
RESULTS
MMDx agreed in 33 (65%) and differed in 18 (35%) of 51 KTRs. Most discrepancies occurred in biopsies called no rejection by MMDx and rejection by histology (15/24, 63%). In contrast, in biopsies called rejection by MMDx, 3 were classified as no rejection by histology (3/27, 11%). Discrepant findings between MMDx and histology occurred following delayed graft function and MMDx from biopsies with a low percentage of cortex. Among 15 biopsies classified as no rejection by MMDx but rejection by histology, the clinical course suggested no rejection in 9 cases. Six KTRs reached the endpoint, showing predominant t ≥ 2 lesions.
CONCLUSIONS
The most often occurring discrepancy is rejection by histology but no rejection by MMDx. As more KTRs do not meet the combined endpoint for rejection, MMDx might be clinically useful in these discrepant cases. Although strong histological findings have priority in indicating the treatment, clinical implementation of MMDx could strengthen treatment strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36117252
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004284
pii: 00007890-202302000-00031
pmc: PMC9875837
doi:
Substances chimiques
methoxy-morpholinyl-doxorubicin
108852-90-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
485-494Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
P.F.H. has shares in Transcriptome Sciences Inc (TSI), a University of Alberta research company with an interest in molecular diagnostics. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int. 1999;55:713–723.
Roufosse C, Simmonds N, Clahsen-van Groningen M, et al. A 2018 reference guide to the banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Transplantation. 2018;102:1795–1814.
Loupy A, Haas M, Roufosse C, et al. The Banff 2019 Kidney Meeting Report (I): Updates on and clarification of criteria for T cell- and antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:2318–2331.
Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ, et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:805–810.
Furness PN, Taub N; Convergence of European Renal Transplant Pathology Assessment Procedures (CERTPAP) Project. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project. Kidney Int. 2001;60:1998–2012.
Halloran PF, Famulski KS, Reeve J. Molecular assessment of disease states in kidney transplant biopsy samples. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2016;12:534–548.
Famulski KS, de Freitas DG, Kreepala C, et al. Molecular phenotypes of acute kidney injury in kidney transplants. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23:948–958.
Einecke G, Reeve J, Sis B, et al. A molecular classifier for predicting future graft loss in late kidney transplant biopsies. J Clin Invest. 2010;120:1862–1872.
Reeve J, Böhmig GA, Eskandary F, et al.; INTERCOMEX MMDx-Kidney Study Group. Generating automated kidney transplant biopsy reports combining molecular measurements with ensembles of machine learning classifiers. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:2719–2731.
Madill-Thomsen KS, Wiggins RC, Eskandary F, et al. The effect of cortex/medulla proportions on molecular diagnoses in kidney transplant biopsies: rejection and injury can be assessed in medulla. Am J Transplant. 2017;17:2117–2128.
Reeve J, Böhmig GA, Eskandary F, et al.; MMDx-Kidney study group. Assessing rejection-related disease in kidney transplant biopsies based on archetypal analysis of molecular phenotypes. JCI Insight. 2017;2:94197.
Halloran PF, Reeve J, Akalin E, et al. Real time central assessment of kidney transplant indication biopsies by microarrays: the INTERCOMEX study. Am J Transplant. 2017;17:2851–2862.
Madill-Thomsen K, Perkowska-Ptasińska A, Böhmig GA, et al.; MMDx-Kidney Study Group. Discrepancy analysis comparing molecular and histology diagnoses in kidney transplant biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:1341–1350.
Reeve J, Sellarés J, Mengel M, et al. Molecular diagnosis of T cell-mediated rejection in human kidney transplant biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:645–655.
Pesavento TE. The Use of molecular techniques to distinguish BK nephropathy from acute rejection: close but not quite. Transplantation. 2021;105:2346–2347.
Halloran PF, Madill-Thomsen KS, Böhmig GA, et al.; INTERCOMEX Investigators. A 2-fold approach to polyoma virus (BK) nephropathy in kidney transplants: distinguishing direct virus effects from cognate T cell-mediated inflammation. Transplantation. 2021;105:2374–2384.
de Freitas DG, Sellarés J, Mengel M, et al. The nature of biopsies with “borderline rejection” and prospects for eliminating this category. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:191–201.
Gupta G, Moinuddin I, Kamal L, et al. Correlation of donor-derived cell-free DNA with histology and molecular diagnoses of kidney transplant biopsies. Transplantation. 2022;106:1061–1070.
Stites E, Kumar D, Olaitan O, et al. High levels of dd-cfDNA identify patients with TCMR 1A and borderline allograft rejection at elevated risk of graft injury. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:2491–2498.
Lezoeva E, Nilsson J, Wüthrich R, et al. High PIRCHE scores may allow risk stratification of borderline rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Front Immunol. 2022;13:788818.
Halloran PF, Chang J, Famulski K, et al. Disappearance of T cell-mediated rejection despite continued antibody-mediated rejection in late kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:1711–1720.
Einecke G, Reeve J, Gupta G, et al.; INTERCOMEX investigators. Factors associated with kidney graft survival in pure antibody-mediated rejection at the time of indication biopsy: Importance of parenchymal injury but not disease activity. Am J Transplant. 2021;21:1391–1401.
Senev A, Coemans M, Lerut E, et al. Histological picture of antibody-mediated rejection without donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies: Clinical presentation and implications for outcome. Am J Transplant. 2019;19:763–780.
Snijders MLH, Varol H, van der Zwan M, et al. Molecular analysis of renal allograft biopsies: Where do we stand and where are we going? Transplantation. 2020;104:2478–2486.
Hruba P, Madill-Thomsen K, Mackova M, et al. Molecular patterns of isolated tubulitis differ from tubulitis with interstitial inflammation in early indication biopsies of kidney allografts. Sci Rep. 2020;10:22220.
Hruba P, Madill-Thomsen K, Mackova M, et al. Three-month course of intragraft transcriptional changes in kidney allografts with early histological minimal injury—a cohort study. Transpl Int. 2021;34:974–985.