Clinical Utility of the Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System in a Real-World Transplant Cohort: Moving Towards a New Paradigm

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical implications of adjunctive molecular gene expression analysis (MMDx) of biopsy specimens in heart transplant (HT) recipients with suspected rejection. Introduction: Histopathological evaluation remains the standard method for rejection diagnosis in HT. However, the wide inter-observer variability combined with a relatively common incidence of "biopsy-negative" rejection has raised concerns about the likelihood of false-negative results. MMDx, which uses gene expression to detect early signs of rejection, is a promising test to further refine the assessment of HT rejection. Methods: Single-center prospective study of 418 consecutive for-cause endomyocardial biopsies performed between November 2022 and May 2024. Each biopsy was graded based on histology and assessed for rejection patterns using MMDx. MMDx results were deemed positive if borderline or definitive rejection was present. The impact of MMDx results on clinical management was evaluated. Primary outcomes were 1-year survival and graft dysfunction following MMDx-guided clinical management. Secondary outcomes included changes in donor-specific antibodies, MMDx gene transcripts, and donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) levels. Results: We analyzed 418 molecular samples from 237 unique patients. Histology identified rejection in 32 cases (7.7%), while MMDx identified rejection in 95 cases (22.7%). Notably, in 79 of the 95 cases where MMDx identified rejection, histology results were negative, with the majority of these cases being antibody-mediated rejection (62.1%). Samples with rejection on MMDx were more likely to show a combined elevation of dd-cfDNA and peripheral blood gene expression profiling than those with borderline or negative MMDx results (36.7% vs 28.0% vs 10.3%; p<0.001). MMDx results led to the implementation of specific anti-rejection protocols or changes in immunosuppression in 20.4% of cases, and in 73.4% of cases where histology was negative and MMDx showed rejection. 1-year survival was better in the positive MMDx group where clinical management was guided by MMDx results (87.0% vs 78.6%; log rank p=0.0017). Conclusions: In our cohort, MMDx results more frequently indicated rejection than histology, often leading to the initiation of anti-rejection treatment. Intervention guided by positive MMDx results was associated with improved outcomes.