4.5 Article

Microvascular inflammation in renal allograft biopsies assessed by endothelial and leukocyte co-immunostain: a retrospective study on reproducibility and clinical/prognostic correlates

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 300-312

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tri.13371

关键词

kidney clinical; rejection

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZICBC010685] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIC BC011638, Z01 BC010685] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most prominent histologic lesion in antibody-mediated rejection is microvascular inflammation (MVI); however, its recognition and scoring can be challenging and poorly reproducible between pathologists. We developed a dual immunohistochemical (IHC)-stain (anti-CD34/anti-CD45 for endothelium/leukocytes) as ancillary tool to improve on the semi-quantitative Banff scores and allow quantification of MVI. We examined the relationship between CD34-CD45 IHC-based quantitative MVI score (the inflamed peritubular capillary ratio, iptcr) and renal-graft failure or donor-specific antibodies (DSA) strength at the time of biopsy. Quantitative iptcr score was significantly associated with renal graft failure (hazard ratio 1.81, per 1 SD-unit [0.13 points] of iptcr-increase; P=0.026) and predicted the presence and strength of DSA (ordinal odds ratio: 2.42; P=0.005; 75 biopsies/60 kidney transplant recipients; 30 HLA- and/or ABO-incompatible). Next, we assessed inter-pathologist agreement for ptc score and ptc extent (focal/diffuse) using CD34-CD45 IHC as compared to conventional stain. Compared to conventional stain, CD34-CD45 IHC significantly increased inter-pathologist agreement on ptc score severity and extent (-coefficient from 0.52-0.80 and 0.46-0.68, respectively, P<0.001). Our findings show that CD34-CD45 IHC improves reproducibility of MVI scoring and facilitates MVI quantification and introduction of a dual anti-CD34/CD45 has the potential to improve recognition of MVI ahead of DSA results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据