International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project.

BACKGROUND The Banff working formulation of renal transplant pathology is intended to have international application. There remains a need to develop methods to harmonize the application of such grading systems between laboratories. Banff grades do not always permit precise management decisions to be made. Alternative schemes have been devised for the diagnosis of acute rejection, but there have been no independent tests of the different approaches. METHODS Sections from 55 renal transplant biopsies were circulated around the laboratories of 22 major transplant units for the Convergence of European Renal Transplant Pathology Assessment Procedures (CERTPAP) Project. Participating pathologists were asked to grade 32 different histological features, without any clinical information. After each circulation of five cases, feedback was provided to participants. Statistical evidence of improvement in interobserver variation was sought. At the end of the study, correlations with the original clinicopathological diagnosis were sought. RESULTS Interobserver variation was greater than has previously been reported. For every feature studied, some pathologists consistently under-grade or over-grade. There was relatively little evidence of improvement in interobserver variation as a result of the feedback system. No single feature permitted a reliable diagnosis of acute rejection. Applying the Banff and CCTT schemas to the histological grades showed no clear diagnostic advantage for either system, but a simple computer-based inference network, which combined data from 12 histological features, out performed either approach. Within the "protocol" biopsies studied, long-term survival correlated better with "acute" than with "chronic" histological features. CONCLUSIONS These results do not undermine the value of the Banff classification, but they demonstrate a need for caution when translating biopsy results between institutions. It is obvious that evaluation of biopsies in multicenter trials must be done in one center. In the management of individual patients, the need to interpret Banff grades in the light of local experience and clinical information is stressed.

[1]  R. Waldherr,et al.  Impact of the Banff '97 classification for histological diagnosis of rejection on clinical outcome and renal function parameters after kidney transplantation. , 2000, Transplantation.

[2]  N. Marcussen,et al.  Reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Inter- and intraobserver variation. , 1995, Transplantation.

[3]  B. Burke,et al.  Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. , 1997, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[4]  Joshua Miller,et al.  A Comparison Of Tacrolimus (fk506) And Cyclosporine For Immunosuppression After Cadaveric Renal Transplantation1 , 1997 .

[5]  A. Gaber,et al.  Correlation of histology to clinical rejection reversal: a thymoglobulin multicenter trial report. , 1999, Kidney international.

[6]  S. White,et al.  TURKISH TRANSPLANTATION SOCIETY: RECENT ADVANCES IN TISSUE AND ORGAN TRANSPLANTATIONAcute rejection in protocol renal transplant biopsies—institutional variations , 2000 .

[7]  A. Gaber,et al.  The correlation of Banff scoring with reversibility of first and recurrent rejection episodes. , 1996, Transplantation.

[8]  M. Nicholson,et al.  Computerized histomorphometric assessment of protocol renal transplant biopsy specimens for surrogate markers of chronic rejection. , 1999, Transplantation.

[9]  W. Grove.  Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed , 1981 .

[10]  P N Furness,et al.  Diagnosis of early acute renal allograft rejection by evaluation of multiple histological features using a Bayesian belief network. , 1998, Journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  H. Isoniemi,et al.  Histopathological findings in well-functioning, long-term renal allografts. , 1992, Kidney international.

[12]  M. Torbenson,et al.  Acute renal allograft rejection with severe tubulitis (Banff 1997 grade IB). , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  H. Isoniemi,et al.  HISTOLOGICAL CHRONIC ALLOGRAFT DAMAGE INDEX ACCURATELY PREDICTS CHRONIC RENAL ALLOGRAFT REJECTION , 1994, Transplantation.

[14]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  An introduction to the bootstrap , 1993 .

[15]  H. E. Hansen,et al.  The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. , 1999, Kidney international.

[16]  P. Nickerson,et al.  Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: a randomized study. , 1998, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[17]  E. Condom,et al.  Early protocol renal allograft biopsies and graft outcome. , 1997, Kidney international.

[18]  P N Furness,et al.  Interinstitutional variation in the performance of Baysian Belief Network for the diagnosis of acute renal graft rejection. , 1999, Transplantation proceedings.

[19]  Bates,et al.  A neural network approach to the biopsy diagnosis of early acute renal transplant rejection , 1999, Histopathology.

[20]  M. Suthanthiran.  Clinical application of molecular biology: a study of allograft rejection with polymerase chain reaction. , 1997, The American journal of the medical sciences.

[21]  J F Burdick,et al.  International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. , 1993, Kidney international.

[22]  M. Suthanthiran.  Molecular analyses of human renal allografts: differential intragraft gene expression during rejection. , 1997, Kidney international. Supplement.

[23]  B. Fellström,et al.  Can histopathological findings in early renal allograft biopsies identify patients at risk for chronic vascular rejection? , 1995, Clinical transplantation.

[24]  J. Fleiss.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1974 .

[25]  H. E. Hansen,et al.  Clinical validation and reproducibility of the Banff schema for renal allograft pathology. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.