The Banff classification revisited

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Kidney International (Impact Factor: 8.56). 12/2012; 83(2). DOI: 10.1038/ki.2012.395
Source: PubMed


From small beginnings in 1991, the Banff working classification of renal allograft pathology has grown to be a major force for setting standards in renal transplant pathology, and is widely used in international clinical trials of new antirejection agents. The meeting, classification, and consensus process have unique history, and look poised to continue for another several decades as the embodiment of the process for setting global standards in pathology. The Banff meetings have expanded from renal allograft pathology to most other areas of solid organ transplantation, and increasingly incorporate international working groups, so that productive collaborative activity is ongoing, creating an important dynamic process enhancing clinical success in transplantation. On the other hand, despite the successes of the working classifications and ongoing collaborative efforts, there are limitations in this and other pathological classifications, related to potential for sampling error, issues of reproducibility when implemented globally, and lack of formal incorporation of morphometry and molecular and genomics approaches. Some of these problems cannot be overcome within the realm of traditional histopathology, and will only be solved when the classification is able to confidently embrace genomics and molecular medicine parameters for all common diagnoses. The smooth integration of these newer technologies with traditional histopathology is one of the great challenges for the future.Kidney International advance online publication, 12 December 2012; doi:10.1038/ki.2012.395.

Download full-text


Available from: Kim Solez, Jul 27, 2015
1 Follower
19 Reads
  • Source
    • "The Banff scoring system is updated on regular basis in response to emerging data and technologies and discussed by several pathologist, clinicians, and scientists. However, the Banff has also some limitations; the precise quantification of interstitial fibrosis is difficult with the Banff since the score is semiquantitative and studies showed that there might be a wide interobserver variability [67] [68] [69]. Another surrogate quantitative marker for the degree of fibrosis is computerized image analysis of fractional interstitial fibrosis of Sirius red stained biopsies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite excellent short-term graft survival after renal transplantation, the long-term graft outcome remains compromised. It has become evident that a combination of sustained alloreactivity and calcineurin-inhibitor- (CNI-) related nephrotoxicity results in fibrosis and consequently dysfunction of the graft. New immunosuppressive regimens that can minimize or eliminate side effects, while maintaining efficacy, are required to improve long-term graft survival. In this perspective mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are an interesting candidate, since MSCs have immunosuppressive and regenerative properties. The first clinical trials with MSCs in renal transplantation showed safety and feasibility and displayed promising results. Recently, the first phase II studies have been started. One of the most difficult and challenging aspects in those early phase trials is to define accurate endpoints that can measure safety and efficacy of MSC treatment. Since both graft losses and acute rejection rates declined, alternative surrogate markers such as renal function, histological findings, and immunological markers are used to measure efficacy and to provide mechanistic insight. In this review, we will discuss the current status of MSCs in renal transplantation with a focus on the endpoints used in the different experimental and clinical studies.
    Journal of Immunology Research 08/2015; 2015(1):391797. DOI:10.1155/2015/391797 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A total of eight rats served as a control group without receiving any treatment. Histopathological classification of acute allograft reaction was performed according to the ‘Banff’ international criteria (9). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies were performed using the standard streptavidin-biotin-peroxidase complex method. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to investigate the expression levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) in acute rejection reaction (ARR) following orthotopic liver transplantation in a rat model. Serum VEGF and bFGF levels were detected using ELISA, and their expression levels in liver and spleen tissues were determined using immunohistochemistry. The mRNA expression levels of VEGF and bFGF were detected by conducting a quantitative polymerase chain reaction during the ARR following orthotopic liver transplantation. The expression levels of VEGF and bFGF in the serum 3 days following liver transplantation were significantly higher compared with those in the other groups (1 and 7 days following transplantation; P<0.01). In addition, the numbers of cells in the liver tissue that were shown to be positive for the expression VEGF and bFGF using immunohistochemistry were significantly higher 3 days following transplantation than at the other time points (P<0.0001). Furthermore, the numbers of cells positive for VEGF and bFGF expression in the spleen detected 3 days following the transplantation surgery were also significantly higher compared with those at the other time points (P<0.01). VEGF and bFGF mRNA expression levels were also increased from 1 day following the surgery and reached a peak at day 3, prior to declining gradually and remaining at a relatively high level. VEGF and bFGF mRNA expression levels changed dynamically, by peaking and then declining, in ARR following orthotopic liver transplantation. These changes may have an important impact on angiogenesis and the inflammatory reaction, and the identification of these changes increases the current understanding of ARR following orthotopic liver transplantation.
    Experimental and therapeutic medicine 08/2014; 8(2):483-487. DOI:10.3892/etm.2014.1779 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "It is responsible for the hemodynamics regulation, angiogenic vascular remodeling but also metabolic, synthetic and anti-inflammatory or antithrombogenic mechanisms [17]. Vascular abnormalities can be observed during acute but also chronic renal allograft rejection [27] [28]. They are associated with glomerulopathy, fibrointimal hyperplasia of arteries and arteriolar hyalinosis. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Non-HLA antibodies (Abs) targeting vascular receptors are considered to have an influence on renal transplant injury. Anti-endothelin-1 type A receptor (anti-ETAR) antibodies were associated with cellular and antibody-mediated rejection and early onset of vasculopathy in heart transplant patients but their role in renal transplantation remains unclear. The aim of our study was to assess the incidence and importance of anti-ETAR antibodies and their impact on renal transplant during the first year observation. Methods: We evaluated the presence of anti-ETAR antibodies in 116 consecutive renal transplant recipients in pre- and post-transplant screening (before and in 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th month after transplantation). Additionally, we assessed the presence of anti-HLA antibodies. Anti-ETAR antibodies were assayed by ELISA. The diagnosis of acute rejection was based on the Banff criteria. Results: Anti-ETAR antibodies were observed in 55 (47.4%) of the analyzed recipients before transplantation. The function of renal transplant was significantly worse in the anti-ETAR(+) group compared to the anti-ETAR(-) group during the first post-transplant year. One month after transplantation the serum creatinine in anti-ETAR (+) patients (pts) was 1.86±0.8mg/dl and 1.51±0.5 in anti-ETAR(-) pts (p=0.009). Twelve months after transplantation the difference between the groups was still observed 1.70±0.7 vs. 1.40±0.4 (p=0.04). Biopsy proven acute rejection was recognized in 8/55 (14.5%) in ETAR(+) and 9/61 (14.8%) in ETAR(-) patients but cases with mild to severe intimal arteritis (v1-v3) were more often observed in patients with the presence of anti-ETAR Abs 4/55 (7.2%) comparing with 1/61 (1.6%) in anti-ETAR(-) patients. The anti-ETAR antibody levels varied at different measurement intervals during the one-year follow-up. Conclusions: The presence of anti-ETAR antibodies is associated with a worse renal transplant function during the first 12months after transplantation. Including anti-ETAR antibodies in the diagnostics of renal transplant recipient immune status should be considered to provide comprehensive assessment of humoral alloimmunity.
    Transplant Immunology 10/2013; 30(1). DOI:10.1016/j.trim.2013.10.007 · 1.46 Impact Factor
Show more