Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Transplant. Sep 18, 2020; 10(9): 230-255
Published online Sep 18, 2020. doi: 10.5500/wjt.v10.i9.230
Table 4 Summary of gene expression related biomarkers associated with immunologic outcomes
Ref.nSampleBiomarkersOutcomeStudy conclusion
Friedewald et al[10], 2019308PlasmaBlood based biomarker/gene expression profileSubclinical acute rejectionGEP AR biomarker predicted sc-AR (sensitivity 64%, specificity 87%, PPV = 61%, NPV = 88%)
Zhang et al[29], 2019113PlasmaTRExRejection at 3 mo, Graft failureTREx predicts sc-AR at 3 mo in 113 KTRs (AUC = 0.830; NPV = 0.98, PPV = 0.79)
Crespo et al[30], 201775PlasmakSORT™ + ELISpotSubclinical rejectionkSORT™ + ELISpot predict sc-ARa, sc-TCMRa and sc-ABMRa (AUC > 0.85)
First et al[32], 2019192; 45PlasmaTruGraf® GEPSurveillance of patients with stable allograft functionIn 87.5% of the cases, investigators’ clinical decisions were influenced by TruGraf® results. In 45 patients TruGraf® supported 87% of clinical decisions with 93% of investigators stating they would use TruGraf® in subsequent patient care
Sigdel et al[33], 2019150 KTRs (43 stable, 45 AR, 19 borderline AR, 43 BKVN)UrineCommon rejection module (11 genes)Rejection10/11 genes were elevated in AR when compared to stable graft function. Psmb9 and CXCL10 could classify AR versus stable graft function as accurately as the 11-gene model (sensitivity = 93.6%, specificity = 97.6%); uCRM score differentiate AR from stable graft function (AUC = 0.9886)