4.3 Article

Comparison of the renal cortex and the medulla for antibody mediated rejection

Journal

NEPHROLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 179-186

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nep.13598

Keywords

antibody-mediated; C4D; peritubular capillary; renal; rejection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The presence of the peritubular capillaritis and its extent are important for diagnosis of the antibody-mediated rejection in kidneys. However, it is recommended that peritubular capillaritis should only be scored in the cortex. This study aims to focus on peritubular capillaritis scoring both in the cortex and the medulla to understand the value of the medulla in the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection. Methods Fifty-one allograft renal biopsy were re-evaluated for peritubular capillaritis, C4d and acute tubular injury, separately for the cortex and the medulla according to the Banff. Results Seventeen cases (33.3%) had peritubular capillaritis both in the cortex and the medulla and three (5.9%) cases had peritubular capillaritis only in the cortex while five (9.8%) cases had only in the medulla. Eighteen (35%) of the cases had C4d staining both in the cortex and the medulla and 14 (27.5%) cases had C4d positivity only in the cortex and 18 (35.3%) cases only in the medulla. Twenty-three (45%) cases had acute tubular injury both in the cortex and the medulla and 31 (60.7%) cases had acute tubular injury only in the cortex and 23 (45.1%) cases had only in the medulla. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of medullar peritubular capillaritis predicting cortical peritubular capillaritis were 85.7%, 86.7%, 81.8% and 89.7%, respectively. Conclusion In case of absence of the cortical tissue, medulla can be used as a reference for antibody-mediated rejection considering the morphological features, results of donor-specific antibody and renal function tests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available