Cargando…

Non-invasive approaches in the diagnosis of acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Part I. In vivo imaging methods

Kidney transplantation (KTx) represents the best available treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Still, full benefits of KTx are undermined by acute rejection (AR). The diagnosis of AR ultimately relies on transplant needle biopsy. However, such an invasive procedure is associated wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hanssen, Oriane, Erpicum, Pauline, Lovinfosse, Pierre, Meunier, Paul, Weekers, Laurent, Tshibanda, Luaba, Krzesinski, Jean-Marie, Hustinx, Roland, Jouret, François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfw062
Descripción
Sumario:Kidney transplantation (KTx) represents the best available treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Still, full benefits of KTx are undermined by acute rejection (AR). The diagnosis of AR ultimately relies on transplant needle biopsy. However, such an invasive procedure is associated with a significant risk of complications and is limited by sampling error and interobserver variability. In the present review, we summarize the current literature about non-invasive approaches for the diagnosis of AR in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), including in vivo imaging, gene expression profiling and omics analyses of blood and urine samples. Most imaging techniques, like contrast-enhanced ultrasound and magnetic resonance, exploit the fact that blood flow is significantly lowered in case of AR-induced inflammation. In addition, AR-associated recruitment of activated leukocytes may be detectable by (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography. In parallel, urine biomarkers, including CXCL9/CXCL10 or a three-gene signature of CD3ε, IP-10 and 18S RNA levels, have been identified. None of these approaches has been adopted yet in the clinical follow-up of KTRs, but standardization of procedures may help assess reproducibility and compare diagnostic yields in large prospective multicentric trials.