Search

Borderline T cell-mediated rejection is a diagnostic category of the Banff schema that uses a lower diagnostic threshold. Subclinical borderline T cell-mediated rejection detected by surveillance sampling is not entirely benign. Studies demonstrate increased rates of late rejection, progressive nephron loss, functional impairment, donor-specific antibody formation, and allograft failure. It can be conceptualized as a failure to control the cellular alloimmune response. Mixed results are reported for its treatment, and randomized controlled trials are needed.

Allograft renal biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing many conditions in the transplant recipient including rejections, infections, recurrent, and de-novo renal disease. The Banff schema of reporting is followed worldwide in arriving at the right diagnosis. The guidelines, the categories, and the Banff scores in this schema are constantly evolving and this has made the interpretation of the biopsy seem complex and difficult especially for the novice. In this review, a detailed description of the various patterns of injury specific to the graft, the Banff categories of diagnoses, the lesions, and the Banff scores are simplified and explained. Lastly, a systematic approach to these allograft biopsies, which can be followed in regular practice, and by which a tentative diagnosis can be made in most cases is laid out.

Pancreas transplantation is an effective therapy for diabetic patients, which can significantly improve the survival rate and quality of life of diabetic patients. According to the international registration of pancreas transplantation center, the global total pancreas transplantation has reached more than 80,000 cases by 2017, including pure pancreas transplantation and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPK). With the development and application of a new type of immunosuppressant, with the gradual maturity of organ preservation technology and surgical technology, the pancreas transplantation has rapidly on a global scale. However, pancreas transplantation still has more problems than limit its development compared with other organ transplantation. For example, the early diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic rejection are of considerable significance to the prognosis of pancreas transplantation. Some surveillance methods of diagnosis have been used increasingly, among which the histopathological diagnosis is particularly important. The first Banff schema for the histological diagnosis of pancreas rejection has been published, which primarily dealt with the diagnosis of acute T-cell-mediated rejection (ACMR). In recent years, antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) has been more emphasized as the primary cause of graft failure. The Banff pancreas allograft rejection grading schema was updated in 2011 by a broad-based multidisciplinary panel, presenting comprehensive guidelines for the diagnosis of AMR.

Copyright © 2019 Aguado-Domínguez, Cabrera-Pérez, Suarez-Benjumea, AbadMolina, Núñez-Roldán and Aguilera., Currently, the diagnosis of kidney allograft rejection relies on individual histological assessments made by expert pathologists according to the Banff classification. In this study, we applied new Computer-Assisted System Technology (newCAST™) by Visiopharm® with the aim of identifying and quantifying the immune cells in inflammatory infiltrates. We searched for distinctive cellular profiles that could be assigned to each rejection category of the Banff schema: antibody-mediated rejection (active and chronic active), borderline, T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), and mixed rejection. This study was performed with 49 biopsy samples, 42 from patients with rejection and 7 from patients with clinical signs of dysfunction but an absence of histological findings of rejection. Plasma cells, B and T lymphocytes, natural killer cells, and macrophages, with a special focus on the M1 and M2 subsets, were studied. A major difference among the Banff rejection groups was in the total amount of cells/mm2 tissue. Principal component analysis identified some distinctive associations. The borderline category grouped with CD4+ lymphocytes and M1 macrophages, and active antibody-mediated rejection (aAMR) clustered with natural killer cells. Despite these findings, the search for characteristic profiles linked to the rejection types proved to be a very difficult task since the cellular composition varied significantly among individuals within the same diagnostic category. The results of this study will be analyzed from the perspective of reconciling the classic way of diagnosing rejection and the immune situation “in situ” at the time of diagnosis., This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Grants 17/1403 and the Andalusian government, Consejería de Economía, Innovación, Ciencia y Empleo, Proyecto de Excelencia CTS-7846, and was co-funded by FEDER from the Regional Development European Funds (European Union).

The Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology reviewed and discussed literature evidence regarding antibody-mediated liver allograft rejection at the 11th (Paris, France, June 5-10, 2011), 12th (Comandatuba, Brazil, August 19-23, 2013), and 13th (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, October 5-10, 2015) meetings of the Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology. Discussion continued online. The primary goal was to introduce guidelines and consensus criteria for the diagnosis of liver allograft antibody-mediated rejection and provide a comprehensive update of all Banff Schema recommendations. Included are new recommendations for complement component 4d tissue staining and interpretation, staging liver allograft fibrosis, and findings related to immunosuppression minimization. In an effort to create a single reference document, previous unchanged criteria are also included.

The aim of this study was to determine how the Banff antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) classification for kidney transplantation is interpreted in practice and impacts therapy. The Banff Antibody-Mediated Injury Workgroup electronically surveyed clinicians and pathologists worldwide regarding diagnosis and treatment for six case-based scenarios. The participants’ (95 clinicians and 72 renal pathologists) assigned diagnoses were compared to the Banff intended diagnoses (reference standard). The assigned diagnoses and reference standard differed by 26.1% (SD 28.1%) for pathologists and 34.5%(SD 23.3%) for clinicians. The greatest discordance between the reference standard and clinicians’ diagnosis was when histologic features of ABMR were present but donor-specific antibody was undetected [49.4%(43/87)]. For pathologists, the greatest discordance was in the case of acute/active ABMR C4d staining negative in a positive crossmatch transplant recipient[33.8%(23/68)]. Treatment approaches were heterogeneous, but linked to the assigned diagnosis. When acute/active ABMR was diagnosed by the clinician, treatment was recommended 95.3%(SD 18.4%) of the time versus only 77.7%(SD 39.2%) of the time when chronic active ABMR was diagnosed (P

Currently, the most challenging problem in the field of renal and other solid organ transplantation is the development of chronic progressive sclerosing changes in the allograft. These occur almost uniformly in all renal allografts at a rate of 2-4% per year. In addition, such changes are also quite prevalent in well functioning grafts, as revealed by protocol biopsies. The chronic changes involve all the four components of the renal graft parenchyma, i.e., the glomeruli, blood vessels, tubules and interstitium. Among these, the glomerular and vascular changes are helpful in defining the causes of chronic changes, especially chronic rejection, but are more prone to sampling error, notably the blood vessels, whereas the tubulo-interstitial changes are less specific. However, because the later are less prone to sampling error, these are used for grading the severity of chronic changes in the Banff formulation. The identification, classification and grading of not only the acute but also the chronic changes is of vital importance in guiding the management and predicting the long-term graft outcome of renal transplant recipients. Banff has addressed the issue of chronic changes in detail in its first formulation, as well as its subsequent modifications. However, the magnitude of changes in this category that have occurred over the last two decades is less than that observed in the categories of antibody-mediated and T-cell-mediated rejections. This review describes in detail the changes that have taken place in the category of chronic allograft damage, as the original Banff classification has undergone updates regularly in the last two decades

Acute transplant glomerulitis, characterized by accumula-tionofinflammatorycellsinglomerularcapillaries,haslongbeen associated with graft rejection. Glomerulitis can bea feature of T cell-mediated acute rejection, but it is thetubulointerstital and vascular inflammation that makes thatdiagnosis and determines the Banff grade. An isolatedglomerulitis lesion with no associated interstitial inflam-mation, tubulitis or intimal arteritis has not previously beenrecognized as a feature of T cell-mediated rejection, andthus glomerulitis has never been integrated into the Banffcriteria for that diagnosis. In humoral rejection, neutrophilpolymorphs may accumulate in the glomerular capillariesin addition to mononuclear cells, and in 2003 glomerulitiswas included as a morphological component of the tis-sue injury in acute antibody-mediated rejection (1). Sincethen, glomerulitis along with peritubular capillaritis havebeen increasingly recognized components of the micro-circulatory injury associated with chronic active antibody-mediatedinjury(2),andinsomecasesofhumoralrejectionthese lesions are the only morphological evidence of graftinflammation.The grading of peritubular capillaritis (ptc score) hasrecently been incorporated into the Banff schema, fol-lowing appropriate reproducibility studies (3). Grading ofglomerulitis (g score) has been a component of Banfflesion scoring since the first version of the Banff classi-fication for renal allograft pathology in 1993 (4), and thecriteriaforscoringhavenotsignificantlyalteredsincethen.The score is determined from the percentage of glomeruliaffected by glomerulitis and whether the process issegmental or global. At the last Banff conference in 2009,glomerulitis scoring was identified as an area warrantingup-to-date studies, particularly to increase reproducibilityof the diagnosis.In this issue (5), Batal and colleagues from University ofPittsburgh Medical Center report one of the largest clini-copathological studies on glomerulitis (111 index biopsiesevaluated), including correlations with peritubular capillary(PTC) C4d deposition and donor-specific antibody (DSA)status. They assessed three separate histological grad-ing systems for glomerulitis, including percentage of af-fected glomeruli, most severely inflamed glomerulus andpresence of endocapillary occlusion by inflammatory cells.All three methods correlated with each other and showedclinicopathological correlations, but percentage of involvedglomeruli showed the most, including correlations withsubsequent graft failure, proteinuria, peritubular capillari-tis, PTC C4d+ and development of DSA.Thiscomprehensivestudyconfirmstheutilityofglomeruli-tis scoring, and the validity of the existing Banff approachto this lesion. The scoring method requires that everyglomerulus in a biopsy be evaluated; for reproducibilitythere needs to be clear guidelines for the cut-off betweenwhatiswithinnormallimitsandamilddegreeofglomeruli-tis. Batal et al. applied a longstanding WHO definitionfrom native kidney glomerular disease of ≥5 leukocytesper glomerulus in standard PAS-stained sections. Whilesevere cases of glomerulitis do often show unequivocalglomerularendothelialswelling,thisfeatureislikelytohavepoor inter-observer reproducibility, and is often not presentwithmilderglomerularinflammation.Theauthorsprovideastrong argument for not requiring endothelial enlargementto diagnose glomerulitis. The percentage cut-offs for Banffgrade of glomerulitis have not been critically assessedin this study, and a more uniform spread of glomerulitisscores would be desirable. Also, reproducibility of scoringhasnotbeenaddressed,butconsiderationshouldcertainlybe given to incorporating these refined definitions into fu-ture Banff criteria for glomerulitis.Some of the most clinically relevant findings of this studywere the association of glomerulitis with other markers ofhumoralrejection,thepersistenceofsevereglomerulitisinfollow-up biopsies following antirejection therapy and fur-ther confirmation of previous studies showing progressionfrom acute endocapillary glomerulitis to chronic transplantglomerulopathy.Thisstudydidnotfindanyassociationwithgrade of T cell-mediated rejection, and the significanceof glomerulitis in the absence of detectable DSA remains

国際Banff基準と治療効果には相関を認めた.G2以上の症例には, OKT3及びALGがMPに比べ, 有効率に有意差を認めた.DSGは症例数が少なく, 今後の検討が必要である, We reviewed 115 cases of acute rejection following renal transplantation. All cases were diagnosed after graft biopsy, and showed histopathological evidence of acute rejection. They were treated with administration of OKT3, 15-deoxyspergualin (DSG), anti-lymphocyte globulin (ALG) or methylprednisolone (MP). All rejections were histopathologically classified according to the Banff working classification. The clinical effects of each drug were evaluated both at 1 month and 1 year following the therapy for rejection, by measurement of serum creatinine level. The effective rate both at 1 month and 1 year was related with the Banff working classification ( p < 0.0001). At 1 month after treatment, there were no significant differences between the OKT3, DSG or ALG group and MP group in cases of borderline change and AR grade I. In cases of grade II and grade III, a significant difference was observed between the OKT3 or ALG group and MP group (p < 0.05). The DSG group showed a slightly better outcome than the MP group, although the difference was not significant. In conclusion, the Banff schema is shown to be valid for classification of acute renal allograft rejection, and it is necessary to determine the treatment for acute rejection according to histopathological classification.

The allo-specific immune responses to transplanted tissues or organs represent one of the most formidable challenges in the field of transplantation. Traditionally, cell-mediated alloimmune responses were considered the preeminent cause of rejection and have remained the focus of immunosuppressive drugs during the last several decades. More recently, attention has also been directed to the alloantibody-mediated damage and the innate immune system in initiating and effecting the immune injury to the transplanted organs. As a corollary to the above considerations, the earlier Banff classifications focused more on diagnosing and categorizing cellular rejection. There have occurred some significant changes in the cell-mediated rejection in recent Banff updates, but the changes are not as drastic or widespread, as those of the antibody-mediated rejection. Acute/active cell-mediated rejection may occur early or considerably late after renal transplantation. In this context, the terms of acute and chronic are not synonymous to their traditional connotations in pathology in terms of speed or duration of reaction. Acute rejection may occur many years after transplantation, and conversely, chronic changes may be present in the graft from the outset, derived from donor changes. Acute/active cell-mediated rejection, although markedly reduced in recent years, still remains one of the common causes of both acute and chronic renal allograft injury and dysfunction throughout the world. Luckily, a vast majority of cases of acute/active cell-mediated rejection respond rapidly and completely to the conventional anti-rejection treatment. In spite of this, it remains one of the most important causes of graft loss, especially in the long-term. Renal allograft biopsy still remains the gold standard test for an accurate diagnosis and categorization of cell-mediated rejection. A standardized approach to renal biopsy study is necessary if the full benefits of this invasive procedure are to be realized. Prior to the early 1990s, there were no uniformly accepted criteria for the diagnosis and classification of renal allograft pathology in general and rejection in particular. During early 1990s, a group of dedicated nephropathologists, clinicians and basic scientists set out to standardize the histopathological study of renal allograft biopsies for the uniform reporting of the pathological lesions across the world. These efforts have continued since then and have resulted in marked refinements in the diagnostic criteria and categories of rejection observed on renal allograft biopsies. The present paper forms the second attempt of the series to address the evolutionary changes in the diagnostic criteria and the classification of the rejection process on renal allograft biopsies as these took place over the years since the early 1990s. An earlier paper described in detail the changes that occurred in the category of antibody-mediated rejection. In this paper, we will discuss the changes that have occurred in the diagnosis and categorization of cell-mediated rejection and the focus, as in previous paper, will be on the morphological findings as observed on renal allograft biopsies.

Accurate diagnosis and grading of rejection and other pathological processes are of paramount importance to guide therapeutic interventions in patients with pancreas allograft dysfunction. A multi-disciplinary panel of pathologists, surgeons and nephrologists was convened for the purpose of developing a consensus document delineating the histopathological features for diagnosis and grading of rejection in pancreas transplant biopsies. Based on the available published data and the collective experience, criteria for the diagnosis of acute cell-mediated allograft rejection (ACMR) were established. Three severity grades (I/mild, II/moderate and III/severe) were defined based on lesions known to be more or less responsive to treatment and associated with better- or worse-graft outcomes, respectively. The features of chronic rejection/graft sclerosis were reassessed, and three histological stages were established. Tentative criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection were also characterized, in anticipation of future studies that ought to provide more information on this process. Criteria for needle core biopsy adequacy and guidelines for pathology reporting were also defined. The availability of a simple, reproducible, clinically relevant and internationally accepted schema for grading rejection should improve the level of diagnostic accuracy and facilitate communication between all parties involved in the care of pancreas transplant recipients.

A panel of recognized experts in liver transplantation pathology, hepatology, and surgery was convened for the purpose of developing a consensus document for the grading of acute liver allograft rejection that is scientifically correct, simple, and reproducible and clinically useful. Over a period of 6 months pertinent issues were discussed via electronic communication media and a consensus conference was held in Banff, Canada in the summer of 1995. Based on previously published data and the combined experience of the group, the panel agreed on a common nomenclature and a set of histopathological criteria for the grading of acute liver allograft rejection, and a preferred method of reporting. Adoption of this internationally accepted, common grading system by scientific journals will minimize the problems associated with the use of multiple different local systems. Modifications of this working document to incorporate chronic rejection are expected in the future.

We reviewed 115 cases of acute rejection following renal transplantation. All cases were diagnosed after graft biopsy, and showed histopathological evidence of acute rejection. They were treated with administration of OKT3, 15-deoxyspergualin (DSG), anti-lymphocyte globulin (ALG) or methylprednisolone (MP). All rejections were histopathologically classified according to the Banff working classification. The clinical effects of each drug were evaluated both at 1 month and 1 year following the therapy for rejection, by measurement of serum creatinine level. The effective rate both at 1 month and 1 year was related with the Banff working classification ( p < 0.0001). At 1 month after treatment, there were no significant differences between the OKT3, DSG or ALG group and MP group in cases of borderline change and AR grade I. In cases of grade II and grade III, a significant difference was observed between the OKT3 or ALG group and MP group (p < 0.05). The DSG group showed a slightly better outcome than the MP group, although the difference was not significant. In conclusion, the Banff schema is shown to be valid for classification of acute renal allograft rejection, and it is necessary to determine the treatment for acute rejection according to histopathological classification.