Kidney transplantation (KTx) is the best treatment for kidney failure, with better patient outcomes and cost efficiency.1 Despite the expansion of organ donation, a severe shortage of donors remains. Thus, the proportion of KTx in recipients with preformed donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) KTx has increased.1 Recipients with preformed DSA usually require preconditioning treatments, such as rituximab, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and plasma exchange to prevent antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). However, the optimal desensitization protocol for recipients with positive DSA but negative flow cytometry T-cell cross-match test (PDNX) remains unclear. In our facility, in addition to rituximab, recipients with positive flow cytometry cross-match test are to undergo multiple sessions of plasmapheresis until the cross-match test turns negative. However, in PDNX recipients, since the cross-match test was already negative, only rituximab administration was applied. Furthermore, few cases involving PDNX recipients have been reported.2-6 Therefore, we herein report the investigation of PDNX recipients, particularly those with a low DSA titer, and discuss its association with AMR prevention. From 2019 to 2023, out of 140 KTx recipients, four were PDNX patients and their DSA mean fluorescence intensities (MFIs) were under 3000 measured by single antigen flow beads assay. Patient characteristics are shown in the Table 1. The four recipients underwent preconditioning treatment as follows: mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus were initiated 3 weeks before KTx, and a single dose of rituximab (200 mg) was administered 2 weeks prior to KTx. Two doses of basiliximab (20 mg × 2) were administered at Days 0 and 4 after KTx. MMF (target area under the curve (AUC) 0–12: 40–60 μg∙h/mL), tacrolimus (target AUC0-24: 120–140 ng∙h/mL) and methylprednisolone (4 mg/day) were administered as a maintenance immunosuppressants. Neither plasmapheresis nor IVIG were administered as a preconditioning step. As a result, two of the four developed AMR. Case #1 experienced an elevation of serum creatinine from 1.0 mg/dL to 1.5 mg/dL on post-operative day (POD) 93. Histological diagnosis revealed AMR with severe glomerulitis, mild peritubular capillaritis, and mild C4d deposition in peritubular capillary (PTC). She was treated with pulse steroid therapy, which resulted in a decrease of serum creatinine to 1.2 mg/dL. In case #2, serum creatinine increased from 0.6 mg/dL to 1.6 mg/dL on POD 8. Allograft biopsy indicated AMR with severe glomerulitis and peritubular capillaritis without C4d deposition in PTC, which led to perform pulse steroid therapy, anti-thymocyte immunoglobulin, and a single session of plasma exchange. This anti-rejection therapy successfully restored allograft function to baseline levels. Of note, these two recipients had a history of sensitization, such as pregnancy, and received donations from their husbands, although their MFI level was not much higher than that of the others. The other two recipients without a history of pretransplant sensitization showed good kidney function without any signs of AMR or other types of rejection, even on histological evaluation by protocol biopsy 3 month and a year post-KTx. We treated the four weakly DSA-positive patients with rituximab alone as desensitization therapy. Two with a history of pregnancy developed AMR that required anti-rejection treatment. Although the number is too small to obtain any conclusion, this outcome suggests that desensitization therapy with rituximab alone may be insufficient if the pretransplant DSA titer is low, particularly in recipient with a history of pretransplant sensitization. Few reports have described the same immunological risk as that of PDNX. Meshari et al. reported that recipients with PDNX received high-dose IVIG alone, and none of the 21 cases developed AMR.3 Berga et al. reported that 40% of PDNX recipients developed AMR despite combined preconditioning with rituximab, plasmapheresis, and IVIG.4 Ishida et al. also showed rituximab alone for PDNX recipients successfully reduced development of AMR, compared with no desensitization.5 Interestingly, even if PDNX recipients had no desensitization prior to KTx, AMR has been reported to occur in 17.6% to 30.8%.5, 6 Although it has yet to be concluded by those previous studies on PDNX recipients due to the small population, most of the various combinations of desensitization therapies did not sufficiently prevent AMR; however, according to meta-analysis reported by Buttigieg et al, the incidence of AMR in PDNX recipients, with or without desensitization, was significantly higher than in DSA-negative recipients.7 Conversely, there was no significant differences in graft survivals between PDNX recipients and DSA-negative recipients. Moreover, the previous studies on the PDNX recipients have not focused much on the history of pretransplant sensitization. As our report showed that both sensitized recipients developed AMR, a history of pretransplant sensitization is potentially crucial for AMR development, especially in recipients with PDNX. Analysis of long-term results in more recipients is required to identify crucial risk factors and more efficiently prevent AMR in PDNX recipients. The authors thank Editage (http://www.editage.com/) for editing a draft of this manuscript for English language. Seiya Ishihara: Data curation; investigation; writing – original draft. Takayuki Hirose: Writing – original draft. Kiyohiko Hotta: Conceptualization; supervision; writing – review and editing. Naoya Iwahara: Data curation. Nobuo Shinohara: Supervision. Kiyohiko Hotta is an Editorial Board member of International Journal of Urology and a co-author of this article. To minimize bias, they were excluded from all editorial decision-making related to the acceptance of this article for publication. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hokkaido University Hospital (protocol: 022-0267). The opt-out method was applied to obtain consent from participants via websites. None. None.