Abstract
Clinical utility of donor-derived, cellfree DNA (dd-cfDNA) in transplantation has been extensively reviewed, supporting its use as a surveillance tool for the early and accurate detection of allograft injury. Yet studies comparing different assay methods have been lacking. Paired sampling of commercially available dd-cfDNA (AlloSure and Prospera) was compared and examined against histology and manufacturer guidance. A total of 76 patients were prospectively assessed, with 11 biopsy sample-proven rejections (antibody-mediated rejection, n=2; T cell-mediated rejection, n=9). Prospera demonstrated larger measurements of dd-cfDNA in comparison with AlloSure, but this was NS (P=0.12). At current manufacturer recommended diagnostic cutoffs, there was no significant difference in sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, or positive predictive value of AlloSure versus Prospera in detecting rejection. AlloSure demonstrated a significantly shorter turnaround time (P=0.01) from blood draw to patient result. Although dd-cfDNAs are similar, they are not the same. Extensive evidence for dd-cfDNA interpretation remains the key to building clinical utility when considering clinical implementation, and remaining consistent to a single platform is important when creating data comparisons.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
