TABLE 2.
Direct comparison of the VXM vs the physical crossmatch
| VXM | Physical flow crossmatch | Concordance | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exchange no. | Class I DSA (MFI) | T-cell prediction | Class II DSA (MFI) | B-cell prediction | Class I DSA (MFI) | T-cell result | Class II DSA (MFI) | B-cell result | T cell | B cell |
| 6 | B48 (17 978 ± 2811), Cw8 (2715 ± 626), A68 (1138 ± 498) | POS (5) | No DSA | POS (5) | B48 (16 738 ± 2967), Cw8 (3316 ± 2222) | POS (5) | No DSA | POS (5) | 100% | 100% |
| 7 | B41 (2127 ± 854) | NEG (7) POS (4) Borderline (1) |
DP4 (3629 ± 686) | POS (8) NEG (4) |
B41 (2162 ± 568) | POS (10) NEG (1) U (1) |
DP4 (4703 ± 1765) | POS (11) U (1) |
40% | 73% |
| 8 | A11 (3249 ± 1180) | POS (13) NEG (2) |
DQ7 (5215 ± 1272) | POS (13) NEG (1) |
A11 (2963 ± 1242) | POS (11) NEG (3) U (1) |
DQ7 (4496 ± 1736) | POS (10) NEG (4) |
85% | 77% |
| 9 | A1 (3450 ± 827), Cw7 (3004 ± 573) | POS (10) Borderline (2) |
No DSA | POS (9) NEG (2) Borderline (1) |
A1 (2738 ± 940), Cw7 (2689 ± 597) | POS (9) NEG (3) |
No DSA | POS (6) NEG (6) |
90% | 67% |
| 10 | B18 (7160 ± 2586), Bw6 (11 236 ± 5526) | POS (13) NEG (1) |
No DSA | POS (10) NEG (4) |
B18 (7134 ± 2572), Bw6 (12 230 ± 5720) | POS (12) NEG (2) |
No DSA | POS (10) NEG (4) |
92% | 100% |
| 11 | B27 (2843 ± 1321) B51 (4650 ± 1572) | POS (14) | DR53 (11 186 ± 4004) | POS (14) | B27 (2889 ± 1060), B51 (4546 ± 1597) | POS (14) | DR53 (11 679 ± 3998) | POS (11) NEG (3) |
100% | 79% |
| 12 | Cw5 (2116 ± 621) | NEG (10) Borderline (3) U (1) |
No DSA | NEG (13) Borderline (1) |
Cw5 (2492 ± 1127) | NEG (14) | No DSA | NEG (14) | 71% | 93% |
| 13 | Cw4 (3215 ± 1151) A23 (13 609 ± 5611) Cw7 (12 623 ± 5423) |
POS (16) | No DSA | POS (16) | A23 (12 276 ± 4804) Cw7 (11 940 ± 5327) |
POS (16) | No DSA | POS (12) NEG (2) Borderline (2) |
100% | 75% |
| 14 | B58 (4363 ± 1568) | POS (15) Borderline (4) |
DR4 (11 386 ± 3762) DR53 (4629 ± 1744) DQ4 (3221 ± 1390) |
POS (19) | B58 (4984 ± 2265) | POS (18) NEG (1) |
DR4 (12 338 ± 3073) DR53 (4985 ± 1747) DQ4 (5198 ± 2955) |
POS (19) | 83% | 100% |
| 15 | No DSA | NEG (14) POS (1) Borderline (1) |
DP5 (16 024 ± 3299) | NEG (14) POS (1) Borderline (1) |
No DSA | NEG (9) POS (5) Borderline (2) |
DP5 (13 295 ± 3951) | POS (13) NEG (2) Borderline (1) |
64% | 14% |
| 16 | No DSA | NEG (15) | DR17 (14 056) DR52 (8229) DP2 (2904) | POS (15) | No DSA | NEG (12) Positive (1) Borderline (2) |
DR17 (13 689 ± 4299) DR52 (11 878 ± 4582) DP2 (4112 ± 1955) |
POS (15) | 80% | 100% |
| 17 | No DSA | NEG (13) Borderline (1) |
DQ6 (22 903 ± 4271) DQA1 (19 059 ± 7466) |
POS (14) | No DSA | NEG (11) Borderline (2) Positive (1) |
DQ6 (21 897 ± 4715) | POS (14) | 85% | 100% |
Direct comparison of VXM predictions with FXM outcomes for Exchanges 6 to 17. Expected FXM predictions, along with DSA and DSA strengths, are shown on the left-hand side of the table for an individual donor cell–recipient serum pair. Actual physical FXM outcome for the same cell-serum pair are shown on the right for comparison. Agreement between predictions and the physical FXM is shown to be influenced by DSA strength.
DSA, donor-specific antibody; FXM, flow cytometry crossmatch; MFI, median florescence intensity ± SD; NEG, negative; POS, positive; U, undetermined; VXM, virtual crossmatch.