Results of Questionnaire Survey of Current Immune Monitoring Practice of Transplant Clinicians and Clinical Pathologists in Korea: Basis for Establishment of Harmonized Immune Monitoring Guidelines.
10.4285/jkstn.2018.32.2.13
- Author:
Eun Suk KANG
1
;
Soo In CHOI
;
Youn Hee PARK
;
Geum Borae PARK
;
Hye Ryon JANG
Author Information
1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Genetics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. eskang@skku.edu
- Publication Type:Review
- Keywords:
Kidney transplantation;
Immunologic monitoring;
Questionnaire survey
- MeSH:
Academies and Institutes;
Consensus;
Decision Making;
Histocompatibility;
Histocompatibility Testing;
Kidney Transplantation;
Korea*;
Monitoring, Immunologic*;
Transplants
- From:The Journal of the Korean Society for Transplantation
2018;32(2):13-25
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Detection of significant alloimmune response, which affects graft function and survival by effective immune monitoring, is critical for treatment decision making. However, there is no consensus regarding immune monitoring (IM) for kidney transplantation (flow KT) in Korea. The IM protocol may be affected by the level of immunological risk, the methods of desensitization and the availabilities of resources such as laboratory support and cost of tests. Questionnaire surveys designed to identify the current practices regarding immune monitoring of KT among transplant clinicians and clinical pathologists in Korea and eventually provide a basis for the establishment of harmonized immune monitoring guidelines in KT were administered as part of a Korean Society for Transplantation Sponsored Research Project. The survey results revealed significant variations in IM protocols and interpretation of tests affecting treatment decisions between institutes. Moreover, the results revealed a need to expand the histocompatibility tests into high resolution HLA typing in multiple loci and non-HLA antibody tests that facilitate the epitope analysis and eventually virtual crossmatching. The results of the questionnaire survey from clinical pathologists are addressing the urgent need for the standardization of interpretation and harmonization of results reporting in single antigen bead based HLA antibody identification. Finally, communication between clinicians and clinical pathologists to meet the clinical expectations regarding various immune monitoring tests is needed.
