ASN's Mission

To create a world without kidney diseases, the ASN Alliance for Kidney Health elevates care by educating and informing, driving breakthroughs and innovation, and advocating for policies that create transformative changes in kidney medicine throughout the world.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on X

Kidney Week

Abstract: FR-PO0747

Role of Gene Expression Profiling (TruGraf) and Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA (TRAC) in Detecting Rejection and Monitoring Treatment Response in Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients

Session Information

Category: Pediatric Nephrology

  • 1900 Pediatric Nephrology

Authors

  • Kizilbash, Sarah J., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
  • Sebastian, Anjalin, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
  • Jensen, Chelsey Joy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
  • Agboli, Isioma, Eurofins Transplant Genomics, LLC, Lenexa, Kansas, United States
  • Movileanu, Iulia, Eurofins Transplant Genomics, LLC, Lenexa, Kansas, United States
  • Evans, Michael David, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Background

Timely treatment of allograft rejection is crucial in preventing premature graft loss. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of blood gene expression profiling (GEP) and donor-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in detecting rejection and monitoring response to treatment through serial measurements in pediatric kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

We prospectively recruited 24 pediatric kidney transplant recipients (aged <21 years) who underwent a for-cause biopsy between 8/20/23 and 2/6/25. Blood samples for GEP and cfDNA were collected at the time of the biopsy (week 0) and at weeks 4 and 8. Serial creatinine levels were also measured. GEP results are presented as TX (transplant excellence) and non-TX. cfDNA results are presented as percentages.

Results

Median age of participants was 6.2 years (IQR: 3.9, 13.7); 50% were male, and 92% were white. Combining GEP results from weeks 0 and 4 (at least one non-TX) yielded sensitivity of 100% (9/9), specificity of 64% (7/11), positive predictive value (PPV) of 69% (9/13), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (7/7) for rejection detection (p = 0.005). The combination of non-TX GEP results and cfDNA >1% at week 0 yielded sensitivity of 33% (3/9), specificity of 100% (13/13), PPV of 100% (3/3), and NPV of 68% (13/19) (p = 0.05). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate serial creatinine, cfDNA, and GEP results. Unlike creatinine, notable improvements were observed in GEP and cfDNA after treatment.

Conclusion

Serial measurements of GEP may improve the sensitivity, and combining GEP with cfDNA may improve the specificity of rejection biomarkers. Serial measurements of GEP and cfDNA may be helpful in determining treatment response.

Funding

  • Commercial Support – Eurofin Transplant Genomics

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)