The XIII Banff meeting, held in conjunction the Canadian Society of Transplantation in Vancouver, Canada, reviewed the clinical impact of updates of C4d‐negative antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) ...from the 2013 meeting, reports from active Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor‐specific antibody tests (anti‐HLA and non‐HLA) with transplant histopathology, and questions of molecular transplant diagnostics. The use of transcriptome gene sets, their resultant diagnostic classifiers, or common key genes to supplement the diagnosis and classification of rejection requires further consensus agreement and validation in biopsies. Newly introduced concepts include the i‐IFTA score, comprising inflammation within areas of fibrosis and atrophy and acceptance of transplant arteriolopathy within the descriptions of chronic active T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) or chronic ABMR. The pattern of mixed TCMR and ABMR was increasingly recognized. This report also includes improved definitions of TCMR and ABMR in pancreas transplants with specification of vascular lesions and prospects for defining a vascularized composite allograft rejection classification. The goal of the Banff process is ongoing integration of advances in histologic, serologic, and molecular diagnostic techniques to produce a consensus‐based reporting system that offers precise composite scores, accurate routine diagnostics, and applicability to next‐generation clinical trials.
In this article, the Banff consortium presents the most updated version of the kidney, pancreas, and VCA transplant rejection classification and prospects for implementing intragraft molecular assessment. See the companion report on page 42.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The 9th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in La Coruna, Spain on June 23–29, 2007. A total of 235 pathologists, clinicians and scientists met to address unsolved issues in ...transplantation and adapt the Banff schema for renal allograft rejection in response to emerging data and technologies. The outcome of the consensus discussions on renal pathology is provided in this article. Major updates from the 2007 Banff Conference were: inclusion of peritubular capillaritis grading, C4d scoring, interpretation of C4d deposition without morphological evidence of active rejection, application of the Banff criteria to zero‐time and protocol biopsies and introduction of a new scoring for total interstitial inflammation (ti‐score). In addition, emerging research data led to the establishment of collaborative working groups addressing issues like isolated ‘v’ lesion and incorporation of omics‐technologies, paving the way for future combination of graft biopsy and molecular parameters within the Banff process.
The Ninth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology held in La Coruna, Spain June 23‐29, 2007 resulted in new developments pertaining to C4d staining, peritubular capillaritis, protocol biopsies, lesion scoring, and eventual incorporation of “omics” technologies into kidney transplant rejection diagnosis.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) became Medicare reimbursable in the United States in October 2017 for the detection of rejection in kidney transplant recipients based on results from its ...pivotal validation trial, but it has not yet been externally validated. We assessed 63 adult kidney transplant recipients with suspicion of rejection with dd-cfDNA and allograft biopsy. Of these, 27 (43%) patients had donor–specific antibodies and 34 (54%) were found to have rejection by biopsy. The percentage of dd-cfDNA was higher among patients with antibody–mediated rejection (ABMR; median 1.35%; interquartile range IQR: 1.10%-1.90%) compared to those with no rejection (median 0.38%, IQR: 0.26%-1.10%; P < .001) and cell–mediated rejection (CMR; median: 0.27%, IQR: 0.19%-1.30%; P = .01). The dd-cfDNA test did not discriminate patients with CMR from those without rejection. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for CMR was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.17-0.66). For ABMR, the AUC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71-0.93) and a dd-cfDNA ≥0.74% yielded a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 71.8%, PPV 68.6%, and NPV 100%. The dd-cfDNA test did not discriminate CMR from no rejection among kidney transplant recipients, although performance characteristics were stronger for the discrimination of ABMR.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Understanding rates and determinants of clinical pathologic progression for recipients with de novo donor‐specific antibody (dnDSA), especially subclinical dnDSA, may identify surrogate endpoints and ...inform clinical trial design. A consecutive cohort of 508 renal transplant recipients (n = 64 with dnDSA) was studied. Recipients (n = 388) without dnDSA or dysfunction had an eGFR decline of −0.65 mL/min/1.73 m2/year. In recipients with dnDSA, the rate eGFR decline was significantly increased prior to dnDSA onset (−2.89 vs. −0.65 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p < 0.0001) and accelerated post‐dnDSA (−3.63 vs. −2.89 mL/min/1.73 m2/year, p < 0.0001), suggesting that dnDSA is both a marker and contributor to ongoing alloimmunity. Time to 50% post‐dnDSA graft loss was longer in recipients with subclinical versus a clinical dnDSA phenotype (8.3 vs. 3.3 years, p < 0.0001). Analysis of 1091 allograft biopsies found that dnDSA and time independently predicted chronic glomerulopathy (cg), but not interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA). Early T cell–mediated rejection, nonadherence, and time were multivariate predictors of IFTA. Independent risk factors for post‐dnDSA graft survival available prior to, or at the time of, dnDSA detection were delayed graft function, nonadherence, dnDSA mean fluorescence intensity sum score, tubulitis, and cg. Ultimately, dnDSA is part of a continuum of mixed alloimmune‐mediated injury, which requires solutions targeting T and B cells.
In this study, the authors analyze clinical and histologic risk factors available at the time of de novo donor‐specific antibody detection to determine clinical and histologic predictors of subsequent allograft failure, and their importance for clinical trial design.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The natural history for patients with de novo donor‐specific antibodies (dnDSA) and the risk factors for its development have not been well defined. Furthermore, clinical and histologic correlation ...with serologic data is limited. We studied 315 consecutive renal transplants without pretransplant DSA, with a mean follow‐up of 6.2 ± 2.9 years. Protocol (n = 215) and for cause (n = 163) biopsies were analyzed. Solid phase assays were used to screen for dnDSA posttransplant. A total of 47 out of 315 (15%) patients developed dnDSA at a mean of 4.6 ± 3.0 years posttransplant. Independent predictors of dnDSA were HLA‐DRβ1 MM > 0 (OR 5.66, p < 0.006); and nonadherence (OR 8.75, p < 0.001); with a strong trend toward clinical rejection episodes preceding dnDSA (OR 1.57 per rejection episode, p = 0.061). The median 10‐year graft survival for those with dnDSA was lower than the No dnDSA group (57% vs. 96%, p < 0.0001). Pathology consistent with antibody‐mediated injury can occur and progress in patients with dnDSA in the absence of graft dysfunction and furthermore, nonadherence and cellular rejection contribute to dnDSA development and progression to graft loss.
Prospective monitoring for de novo donor‐specific antibody in renal transplantation using clinical, serological and histopathological methods uncovers distinct clinical phenotypes and the pathology associated with them, as well as the independent risk factors for their development. See editorial by Kokko and Colvin on page 1077.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The 12th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Comandatuba, Brazil, from August 19–23, 2013, and was preceded by a 2‐day Latin American Symposium on Transplant Immunobiology and ...Immunopathology. The meeting was highlighted by the presentation of the findings of several working groups formed at the 2009 and 2011 Banff meetings to: (1) establish consensus criteria for diagnosing antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) in the presence and absence of detectable C4d deposition; (2) develop consensus definitions and thresholds for glomerulitis (g score) and chronic glomerulopathy (cg score), associated with improved inter‐observer agreement and correlation with clinical, molecular and serological data; (3) determine whether isolated lesions of intimal arteritis (“isolated v”) represent acute rejection similar to intimal arteritis in the presence of tubulointerstitial inflammation; (4) compare different methodologies for evaluating interstitial fibrosis and for performing/evaluating implantation biopsies of renal allografts with regard to reproducibility and prediction of subsequent graft function; and (5) define clinically and prognostically significant morphologic criteria for subclassifying polyoma virus nephropathy. The key outcome of the 2013 conference is defining criteria for diagnosis of C4d‐negative ABMR and respective modification of the Banff classification. In addition, three new Banff Working Groups were initiated.
The 2013 Banff Transplant Conference defines revised, consensus criteria for acute/active and chronic, active antibody‐mediated rejection in renal allograft biopsies, criteria that include C4d‐negative antibody‐mediated rejection and antibody‐associated arterial lesions. Also see comprehensive review by Djamali et al on page 255.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Summary
Late antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) is a cardinal cause of kidney allograft failure, manifesting as a continuous and, in contrast with early rejection, often clinically silent alloimmune ...process. While significant progress has been made towards an improved understanding of its molecular mechanisms and the definition of diagnostic criteria, there is still no approved effective treatment. In recent small randomized controlled trials, therapeutic strategies with promising results in observational studies, such as proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, anti‐C5 antibody eculizumab, or high dose intravenous immunoglobulin plus rituximab, had no significant impact in late and/or chronic ABMR. Such disappointing results reinforce a need of new innovative treatment strategies. Potential candidates may be the interference with interleukin‐6 to modulate B cell alloimmunity, or innovative compounds that specifically target antibody‐producing plasma cells, such as antibodies against CD38. Given the phenotypic heterogeneity of ABMR, the design of adequate systematic trials to assess the safety and efficiency of such therapies, however, is challenging. Several trials are currently being conducted, and new developments will hopefully provide us with effective ways to counteract the deleterious impact of antibody‐mediated graft injury. Meanwhile, the weight of evidence would suggest that, when approaching using existing treatments for established antibody‐mediated rejection, “less may be more”.
The authors conducted a prospective trial to assess the feasibility of real time central molecular assessment of kidney transplant biopsy samples from 10 North American or European centers. Biopsy ...samples taken 1 day to 34 years posttransplantation were stabilized in RNAlater, sent via courier overnight at ambient temperature to the central laboratory, and processed (29 h workflow) using microarrays to assess T cell– and antibody‐mediated rejection (TCMR and ABMR, respectively). Of 538 biopsy samples submitted, 519 (96%) were sufficient for microarray analysis (average length, 3 mm). Automated reports were generated without knowledge of histology and HLA antibody, with diagnoses assigned based on Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) classifier algorithms and signed out by one observer. Agreement between MMDx and histology (balanced accuracy) was 77% for TCMR, 77% for ABMR, and 76% for no rejection. A classification tree derived to provide automated sign‐outs predicted the observer sign‐outs with >90% accuracy. In 451 biopsy samples where feedback was obtained, clinicians indicated that MMDx more frequently agreed with clinical judgment (87%) than did histology (80%) (p = 0.0042). In 81% of feedback forms, clinicians reported that MMDx increased confidence in management compared with conventional assessment alone. The authors conclude that real time central molecular assessment is feasible and offers a useful new dimension in biopsy interpretation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#01299168.
An international trial to study the feasibility and effectiveness of real‐time central microarray processing of kidney transplant biopsies, interpreted by the Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System, finds that 96% of all biopsies received could be reported, and participating clinicians indicate considerable potential of this method to change care.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
The kidney sessions of the 2017 Banff Conference focused on 2 areas: clinical implications of inflammation in areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (i‐IFTA) and its relationship to T ...cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), and the continued evolution of molecular diagnostics, particularly in the diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). In confirmation of previous studies, it was independently demonstrated by 2 groups that i‐IFTA is associated with reduced graft survival. Furthermore, these groups presented that i‐IFTA, particularly when involving >25% of sclerotic cortex in association with tubulitis, is often a sequela of acute TCMR in association with underimmunosuppression. The classification was thus revised to include moderate i‐IFTA plus moderate or severe tubulitis as diagnostic of chronic active TCMR. Other studies demonstrated that certain molecular classifiers improve diagnosis of ABMR beyond what is possible with histology, C4d, and detection of donor‐specific antibodies (DSAs) and that both C4d and validated molecular assays can serve as potential alternatives and/or complements to DSAs in the diagnosis of ABMR. The Banff ABMR criteria are thus updated to include these alternatives. Finally, the present report paves the way for the Banff scheme to be part of an integrative approach for defining surrogate endpoints in next‐generation clinical trials.
The Banff consortium presents revisions to the diagnostic criteria for T cell– and antibody‐mediated kidney transplant rejection, including specific criteria for chronic active T cell–mediated rejection, plus prospects for integrative endpoints in clinical trials. See related articles on pages 321, 364, and 377.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
We previously established a six-gene–based blood score associated with operational tolerance in kidney transplantation which was decreased in patients developing anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies ...(DSA). Herein, we aimed to confirm that this score is associated with immunological events and risk of rejection. We measured this using quantitative PCR (qPCR) and NanoString methods from an independent multicenter cohort of 588 kidney transplant recipients with paired blood samples and biopsies at one year after transplantation validating its association with pre-existing and de novo DSA. From 441 patients with protocol biopsy, there was a significant decrease of the score of tolerance in 45 patients with biopsy-proven subclinical rejection (SCR), a major threat associated with pejorative allograft outcomes that prompted an SCR score refinement. This refinement used only two genes, AKR1C3 and TCL1A, and four clinical parameters (previous experience of rejection, previous transplantation, sex of recipient and tacrolimus uptake). This refined SCR score was able to identify patients unlikely to develop SCR with a C-statistic of 0.864 and a negative predictive value of 98.3%. The SCR score was validated in an external laboratory, with two methods (qPCR and NanoString), and on 447 patients from an independent and multicenter cohort. Moreover, this score allowed reclassifying patients with discrepancies between the DSA presence and the histological diagnosis of antibody mediated rejection unlike kidney function. Thus, our refined SCR score could improve detection of SCR for closer and noninvasive monitoring, allowing early treatment of SCR lesions notably for patients DSA-positive and during lowering of immunosuppressive treatment.
Display omitted
PDF
