SWOT Analysis of Banff: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the International Banff Consensus Process and Classification System for Renal Allograft Pathology

The Banff process defined the diagnostic histologic lesions for renal allograft rejection and created a standardized classification system where none had existed. By correcting this deficit the process had universal impact on clinical practice and clinical and basic research. All trials of new drugs since the early 1990s benefited, because the Banff classification of lesions permitted the end point of biopsy‐proven rejection. The Banff process has strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). The strength is its self‐organizing group structure to create consensus. Consensus does not mean correctness: defining consensus is essential if a widely held view is to be proved wrong. The weaknesses of the Banff process are the absence of an independent external standard to test the classification; and its almost exclusive reliance on histopathology, which has inherent limitations in intra‐ and interobserver reproducibility, particularly at the interface between borderline and rejection, is exactly where clinicians demand precision. The opportunity lies in the new technology such as transcriptomics, which can form an external standard and can be incorporated into a new classification combining the elegance of histopathology and the objectivity of transcriptomics. The threat is the degree to which the renal transplant community will participate in and support this process.

[1]  R. Colvin,et al.  Banff '05 Meeting Report: Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Allograft Injury and Elimination of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy (‘CAN’) , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[2]  M. Hammond,et al.  A working formulation for the standardization of nomenclature in the diagnosis of heart and lung rejection: Heart Rejection Study Group. The International Society for Heart Transplantation. , 1990, The Journal of heart transplantation.

[3]  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.

[4]  G. Dammin The kidney as a homograft and its host. , 1960, Medical bulletin.

[5]  A. Melk,et al.  Lesions of T‐Cell‐Mediated Kidney Allograft Rejection in Mice Do Not Require Perforin or Granzymes A and B , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[6]  Philip F Halloran,et al.  Banff 2003 Meeting Report: New Diagnostic Insights and Standards , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[7]  A. Schwarz,et al.  Infiltrates in Protocol Biopsies from Renal Allografts , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[8]  D. Rush,et al.  Reproducibility of the Banff classification in subclinical kidney transplant rejection , 2005, Clinical transplantation.

[9]  N Taub,et al.  International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP Project. , 2001, Kidney international.

[10]  D. Rush,et al.  Report of the Third Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology (July 20-24, 1995) on classification and lesion scoring in renal allograft pathology. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.

[11]  J. Diebold,et al.  Lymphoma classification--from controversy to consensus: the R.E.A.L. and WHO Classification of lymphoid neoplasms. , 2000, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[12]  P. Halloran,et al.  Heterogeneity in the Evolution and Mechanisms of the Lesions of Kidney Allograft Rejection in Mice , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[13]  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.

[14]  D. Rush Protocol biopsies should be part of the routine management of kidney transplant recipients. Pro. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[15]  M. Fishbein,et al.  Antibody‐Mediated Rejection Criteria – an Addition to the Banff ′97 Classification of Renal Allograft Rejection , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[16]  I. Hutchinson,et al.  INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT GLIOTOXIN IN ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION , 1995, Transplantation.

[17]  D. Salomon Protocol biopsies should be part of the routine management of kidney transplant recipients. Con. , 2002, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[18]  Philip F Halloran,et al.  Expression of CTL Associated Transcripts Precedes the Development of Tubulitis in T‐Cell Mediated Kidney Graft Rejection , 2005, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

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

[20]  K. Famulski,et al.  Tubulitis and Epithelial Cell Alterations in Mouse Kidney Transplant Rejection Are Independent of CD103, Perforin or Granzymes A/B , 2006, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

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

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

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

[24]  E. Woodle,et al.  The relationship of untreated borderline infiltrates by the Banff criteria to acute rejection in renal allograft biopsies. , 1999, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[25]  M. Haas,et al.  Acute renal allograft rejection with intimal arteritis: histologic predictors of response to therapy and graft survival. , 2002, Kidney international.

[26]  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.

[27]  P. Halloran,et al.  Early Loss of Renal Transcripts in Kidney Allografts: Relationship to the Development of Histologic Lesions and Alloimmune Effector Mechanisms , 2007, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[28]  P. Nickerson,et al.  Reproducibility of the Banff schema in reporting protocol biopsies of stable renal allografts. , 2002, Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association.

[29]  H. Gritsch,et al.  Clinical significance of renal allograft biopsies with "borderline changes," as defined in the Banff Schema. , 1997, Transplantation.

[30]  N. Marcussen,et al.  Morphometric and immunohistochemical investigation of renal biopsies from patients with transplant ATN, native ATN, or acute graft rejection. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.

[31]  L. Racusen Molecular techniques in transplantation. , 2004, Transplantation proceedings.

[32]  P. Kuo,et al.  Significance of the Banff borderline biopsy. , 1996, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[33]  P. Halloran,et al.  The Banff schema four years later. , 1996, Transplantation Proceedings.

[34]  S. Cramer,et al.  International variation in histologic grading is large and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. , 2004, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[35]  Dammin Gj The kidney as a homograft and its host. , 1960 .