Banff 2011 Meeting Report: New Concepts in Antibody‐Mediated Rejection

The 11th Banff meeting was held in Paris, France, from June 5 to 10, 2011, with a focus on refining diagnostic criteria for antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). The major outcome was the acknowledgment of C4d‐negative ABMR in kidney transplants. Diagnostic criteria for ABMR have also been revisited in other types of transplants. It was recognized that ABMR is associated with heterogeneous phenotypes even within the same type of transplant. This highlights the necessity of further refining the respective diagnostic criteria, and is of particular significance for the design of randomized clinical trials. A reliable phenotyping will allow for definition of robust end‐points. To address this unmet need and to allow for an evidence‐based refinement of the Banff classification, Banff Working Groups presented multicenter data regarding the reproducibility of features relevant to the diagnosis of ABMR. However, the consensus was that more data are necessary and further Banff Working Group activities were initiated. A new Banff working group was created to define diagnostic criteria for ABMR in kidneys independent of C4d. Results are expected to be presented at the 12th Banff meeting to be held in 2013 in Brazil. No change to the Banff classification occurred in 2011.     

Banff ’09 Meeting Report: Antibody Mediated Graft Deterioration and Implementation of Banff Working Groups

The 10th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Canada from August 9 to 14, 2009. A total of 263 transplant clinicians, pathologists, surgeons, immunologists and researchers discussed several aspects of solid organ transplants with a special focus on antibody mediated graft injury. The willingness of the Banff process to adapt continuously in response to new research and improve potential weaknesses, led to the implementation of six working groups on the following areas: isolated v‐lesion, fibrosis scoring, glomerular lesions, molecular pathology, polyomavirus nephropathy and quality assurance. Banff working groups will conduct multicenter trials to evaluate the clinical relevance, practical feasibility and reproducibility of potential changes to the Banff classification. There were also sessions on quality improvement in biopsy reading and utilization of virtual microscopy for maintaining competence in transplant biopsy interpretation. In addition, compelling molecular research data led to the discussion of incorporation of omics‐technologies and discovery of new tissue markers with the goal of combining histopathology and molecular parameters within the Banff working classification in the near future.     

Banff survey on antibody‐mediated rejection clinical practices in kidney transplantation: Diagnostic misinterpretation has potential therapeutic implications

The aim of this study was to determine how the Banff antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) classification for kidney transplantation is interpreted in practice and affects therapy. The Banff Antibody‐Mediated Injury Workgroup electronically surveyed clinicians and pathologists worldwide regarding diagnosis and treatment for 6 case‐based scenarios. The participants' (95 clinicians and 72 renal pathologists) assigned diagnoses were compared to the Banff intended diagnoses (reference standard). The assigned diagnoses and reference standard differed by 26.1% (SD 28.1%) for pathologists and 34.5% (SD 23.3%) for clinicians. The greatest discordance between the reference standard and clinicians' diagnosis was when histologic features of ABMR were present but donor‐specific antibody was undetected (49.4% [43/87]). For pathologists, the greatest discordance was in the case of acute/active ABMR C4d staining negative in a positive crossmatch transplant recipient (33.8% [23/68]). Treatment approaches were heterogeneous but linked to the assigned diagnosis. When acute/active ABMR was diagnosed by the clinician, treatment was recommended 95.3% (SD 18.4%) of the time vs only 77.7% (SD 39.2%) of the time when chronic active ABMR was diagnosed (P < .0001). In conclusion, the Banff ABMR classification is vulnerable to misinterpretation, which potentially has patient management implications. Continued efforts are needed to improve the understanding and standardized application of ABMR classification in the transplant community.     

The Banff 2019 Kidney Meeting Report (I): Updates on and clarification of criteria for T cell– and antibody‐mediated rejection

The XV. Banff conference for allograft pathology was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics in Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and focused on refining recent updates to the classification, advances from the Banff working groups, and standardization of molecular diagnostics. This report on kidney transplant pathology details clarifications and refinements to the criteria for chronic active (CA) T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). The main focus of kidney sessions was on how to address biopsies meeting criteria for CA TCMR plus borderline or acute TCMR. Recent studies on the clinical impact of borderline infiltrates were also presented to clarify whether the threshold for interstitial inflammation in diagnosis of borderline should be i0 or i1. Sessions on ABMR focused on biopsies showing microvascular inflammation in the absence of C4d staining or detectable donor‐specific antibodies; the potential value of molecular diagnostics in such cases and recommendations for use of the latter in the setting of solid organ transplantation are presented in the accompanying meeting report. Finally, several speakers discussed the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the potential for use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis and personalized therapeutics in solid organ transplantation.     

The Banff 2017 Kidney Meeting Report: Revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T cell–mediated rejection,antibody‐mediated rejection,and prospects for integrative endpoints for next‐generation clinical trials

The kidney sessions of the 2017 Banff Conference focused on 2 areas: clinical implications of inflammation in areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (i‐IFTA) and its relationship to T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), and the continued evolution of molecular diagnostics, particularly in the diagnosis of antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). In confirmation of previous studies, it was independently demonstrated by 2 groups that i‐IFTA is associated with reduced graft survival. Furthermore, these groups presented that i‐IFTA, particularly when involving >25% of sclerotic cortex in association with tubulitis, is often a sequela of acute TCMR in association with underimmunosuppression. The classification was thus revised to include moderate i‐IFTA plus moderate or severe tubulitis as diagnostic of chronic active TCMR. Other studies demonstrated that certain molecular classifiers improve diagnosis of ABMR beyond what is possible with histology, C4d, and detection of donor‐specific antibodies (DSAs) and that both C4d and validated molecular assays can serve as potential alternatives and/or complements to DSAs in the diagnosis of ABMR. The Banff ABMR criteria are thus updated to include these alternatives. Finally, the present report paves the way for the Banff scheme to be part of an integrative approach for defining surrogate endpoints in next‐generation clinical trials.     

Banff移植病理学诊断标准的起源、发展及对器官移植的推动作用

Banff移植病理学会议(Banff会议)的召开及Banff移植病理学诊断标准(Banff标准)的建立是国际移植病理学发展的里程碑。目前世界各器官移植中心均常规依据Banff标准进行移植肾的活组织检查(活检)病理学诊断。随后移植肾Banff标准的研讨和更新模式很快扩展至移植心脏、移植肺、移植肝、移植胰腺和移植小肠等各类移植器官。Banff会议不仅成为包含各类移植器官病理学研讨的专题会议,而且也为各类移植器官的活检逐步制定了统一的诊断标准,更好地促进了器官移植术后并发症的明确诊断和治疗。本文总结了国际移植病理学研究的历史、Banff会议及Banff标准对器官移植的推动作用,旨在为临床器官移植的顺利开展提供参考。     

The bridge between transplantation and regenerative medicine: Beginning a new Banff classification of tissue engineering pathology

The science of regenerative medicine is arguably older than transplantation—the first major textbook was published in 1901—and a major regenerative medicine meeting took place in 1988, three years before the first Banff transplant pathology meeting. However, the subject of regenerative medicine/tissue engineering pathology has never received focused attention. Defining and classifying tissue engineering pathology is long overdue. In the next decades, the field of transplantation will enlarge at least tenfold, through a hybrid of tissue engineering combined with existing approaches to lessening the organ shortage. Gradually, transplantation pathologists will become tissue‐(re‐) engineering pathologists with enhanced skill sets to address concerns involving the use of bioengineered organs. We outline ways of categorizing abnormalities in tissue‐engineered organs through traditional light microscopy or other modalities including biomarkers. We propose creating a new Banff classification of tissue engineering pathology to standardize and assess de novo bioengineered solid organs transplantable success in vivo. We recommend constructing a framework for a classification of tissue engineering pathology now with interdisciplinary consensus discussions to further develop and finalize the classification at future Banff Transplant Pathology meetings, in collaboration with the human cell atlas project. A possible nosology of pathologic abnormalities in tissue‐engineered organs is suggested.     

Revisiting the changes in the Banff classification for antibody-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation

The Banff classification for antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) has undergone important changes, mainly by inclusion of C4d-negative ABMR in Banff’13 and elimination of suspicious ABMR (sABMR) with the use of C4d as surrogate for HLA-DSA in Banff’17. We aimed to evaluate the numerical and prognostic repercussions of these changes in a single-center cohort study of 949 single kidney transplantations, comprising 3662 biopsies that were classified according to the different versions of the Banff classification. Overall, the number of ABMR and sABMR cases increased from Banff’01 to Banff’13. In Banff’17, 248 of 292 sABMR biopsies were reclassified to No ABMR, and 44 of 292 to ABMR. However, reclassified sABMR biopsies had worse and better outcome than No ABMR and ABMR, which was mainly driven by the presence of microvascular inflammation and absence of HLA-DSA, respectively. Consequently, the discriminative performance for allograft failure was lowest in Banff’17, and highest in Banff’13. Our data suggest that the clinical and histological heterogeneity of ABMR is inadequately represented in a binary classification system. This study provides a framework to evaluate the updates of the Banff classification and assess the impact of proposed changes on the number of cases and risk stratification. Two alternative classifications introducing an intermediate category are explored.     

Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Antibody‐Mediated Rejection in Pancreas Allografts—Updated Banff Grading Schema

The first Banff proposal for the diagnosis of pancreas rejection (Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 237) dealt primarily with the diagnosis of acute T‐cell‐mediated rejection (ACMR), while only tentatively addressing issues pertaining to antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR). This document presents comprehensive guidelines for the diagnosis of AMR, first proposed at the 10th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology and refined by a broad‐based multidisciplinary panel. Pancreatic AMR is best identified by a combination of serological and immunohistopathological findings consisting of (i) identification of circulating donor‐specific antibodies, and histopathological data including (ii) morphological evidence of microvascular tissue injury and (iii) C4d staining in interacinar capillaries. Acute AMR is diagnosed conclusively if these three elements are present, whereas a diagnosis of suspicious for AMR is rendered if only two elements are identified. The identification of only one diagnostic element is not sufficient for the diagnosis of AMR but should prompt heightened clinical vigilance. AMR and ACMR may coexist, and should be recognized and graded independently. This proposal is based on our current knowledge of the pathogenesis of pancreas rejection and currently available tools for diagnosis. A systematized clinicopathological approach to AMR is essential for the development and assessment of much needed therapeutic interventions.     

Noninvasive detection of graft injury after heart transplant using donor‐derived cell‐free DNA: A prospective multicenter study

Standardized donor‐derived cell‐free DNA (dd‐cfDNA) testing has been introduced into clinical use to monitor kidney transplant recipients for rejection. This report describes the performance of this dd‐cfDNA assay to detect allograft rejection in samples from heart transplant (HT) recipients undergoing surveillance monitoring across the United States. Venous blood was longitudinally sampled from 740 HT recipients from 26 centers and in a single‐center cohort of 33 patients at high risk for antibody‐mediated rejection (AMR). Plasma dd‐cfDNA was quantified by using targeted amplification and sequencing of a single nucleotide polymorphism panel. The dd‐cfDNA levels were correlated to paired events of biopsy‐based diagnosis of rejection. The median dd‐cfDNA was 0.07% in reference HT recipients (2164 samples) and 0.17% in samples classified as acute rejection (35 samples; P = .005). At a 0.2% threshold, dd‐cfDNA had a 44% sensitivity to detect rejection and a 97% negative predictive value. In the cohort at risk for AMR (11 samples), dd‐cfDNA levels were elevated 3‐fold in AMR compared with patients without AMR (99 samples, P = .004). The standardized dd‐cfDNA test identified acute rejection in samples from a broad population of HT recipients. The reported test performance characteristics will guide the next stage of clinical utility studies of the dd‐cfDNA assay.     

Prognostic value of the Banff classification

Abstract We evaluated whether classification of renal allograft biopsies according to the Banff schema is a predictive parameter for graft survival. All patients who received renal transplants between 1980 and 1994 at the University of Erlangen‐Nuremberg (n = 1141) were included. Patients who had undergone a renal biopsy (n = 306) were divided into groups according to the Banff classification. We observed a correlation (P < 0.05) between biopsy findings and the following patient characteristics: donor/recipient age, donor/recipient gender, panel reactive antibodies, maintenance immunosuppression, and primary renal disease. Compared to patients who did not undergo renal biopsy (55.9%), 5‐year graft survival was reduced in patients with moderate acute rejection defined by tubulitis (20.6%, P = 0.03) or arteritis (0%; P < 0.0001) and in patients with severe acute rejection (24.4%, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: (1). The Banff classification is a predictive parameter for renal allograft survival. (2). Certain characteristics predispose patients to certain biopsy findings.     

The Revised (2013) Banff Classification for Antibody‐Mediated Rejection of Renal Allografts: Update,Difficulties, and Future Considerations

The Banff 2013 classification (Banff 2013) for antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) in renal allografts represents the first major revision of the original Banff classification for ABMR that was published in 2003. The main impetus for this revision was the need to include C4d‐negative ABMR, although this revised classification contains a number of additional features based on findings reported from 2007 to 2013. Since its publication, several studies have examined the validity of different aspects of Banff 2013 and compared it to earlier (2003, 2007) versions of the Banff ABMR classification. Recent evidence, albeit limited, indicates that Banff 2013 represents an improvement over the previous versions, enhancing our ability to accurately diagnose cases of acute/active and chronic active ABMR on renal allograft biopsy. Molecular studies appear to justify the threshold value of glomerulitis plus peritubular capillaritis score ≥2 required by Banff 2013 for the diagnosis of C4d‐negative ABMR; however, other aspects of the classification, including its overall interobserver reproducibility, the clinical significance of the category of C4d staining without evidence of rejection, and whether surrogate markers might potentially substitute for the requirement for the presence of donor‐specific antibodies, require additional investigation.     

Using computer‐assisted morphometrics of 5‐year biopsies to identify biomarkers of late renal allograft loss

The current Banff scoring system was not developed to predict graft loss and may not be ideal for use in clinical trials aimed at improving allograft survival. We hypothesized that scoring histologic features of digitized renal allograft biopsies using a continuous, more objective, computer‐assisted morphometric (CAM) system might be more predictive of graft loss. We performed a nested case‐control study in kidney transplant recipients with a surveillance biopsy obtained 5 years after transplantation. Patients that developed death‐censored graft loss (n = 67) were 2:1 matched on age, gender, and follow‐up time to controls with surviving grafts (n = 134). The risk of graft loss was compared between CAM‐based models vs a model based on Banff scores. Both Banff and CAM identified chronic lesions associated with graft loss (chronic glomerulopathy, arteriolar hyalinosis, and mesangial expansion). However, the CAM‐based models predicted graft loss better than the Banff‐based model, both overall (c‐statistic 0.754 vs 0.705, P < .001), and in biopsies without chronic glomerulopathy (c‐statistic 0.738 vs 0.661, P < .001) where it identified more features predictive of graft loss (% luminal stenosis and % mesangial expansion). Using 5‐year renal allograft surveillance biopsies, CAM‐based models predict graft loss better than Banff models and might be developed into biomarkers for future clinical trials.     

Correlation between the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft biopsies and clinical outcome

The 1997 fourth Banff meeting revised the consensus for describing transplant biopsies. We have conducted a retrospective analysis of biopsies correlated between the Banff 97 classification and clinical outcome. The patients (n=149), who had a total of 404 biopsy-proven rejections, were assessed and the biopsies taken from these patients were re-examined and classified according to the Banff 97 classification. Morphological changes in the glomeruli (g), interstitium (i), tubules(t), and arterial vessels (v) were scored. Severity of acute rejection was statistically associated with unresponsiveness to anti-rejection treatment (P<0.0001) and predicted an increased risk of graft failure (P<0.05). Each quantitative criterion (g, i, t, and v) was also statistically associated with unresponsiveness to anti-rejection treatment. Mean serum creatinine levels were significantly higher in the groups graded Banff 97 type I--III after 1 and 2 years of follow-up. The Banff 97 classification correlated with reversibility of rejection episodes and long-term graft survival.     

Banff Digital Pathology Working Group: Going digital in transplant pathology

The Banff Digital Pathology Working Group (DPWG) was formed in the time leading up to and during the joint American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics/Banff Meeting, September 23‐27, 2019, held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At the meeting, the 14th Banff Conference, presentations directly and peripherally related to the topic of “digital pathology” were presented; and discussions before, during, and after the meeting have resulted in a list of issues to address for the DPWG. Included are practice standardization, integrative approaches for study classification, scoring of histologic parameters (eg, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy and inflammation), algorithm classification, and precision diagnosis (eg, molecular pathways and therapeutics). Since the meeting, a survey with international participation of mostly pathologists (81%) was conducted, showing that whole slide imaging is available at the majority of centers (71%) but that artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning was only used in ≈12% of centers, with a wide variety of programs/algorithms employed. Digitalization is not just an end in itself. It also is a necessary precondition for AI and other approaches. Discussions at the meeting and the survey highlight the unmet need for a Banff DPWG and point the way toward future contributions that can be made.     

Long‐term follow‐up of the DeKAF cross‐sectional cohort study

The DeKAF study was developed to better understand the causes of late allograft loss. Preliminary findings from the DeKAF cross‐sectional cohort (with follow‐up < 20 months) have been published. Herein, we present long‐term outcomes in those recipients (mean follow‐up ± SD, 6.6 ± 0.7 years). Eligibility included being transplanted prior to October 1, 2005; serum creatinine ≤ 2.0 mg/dL on January 1, 2006; and subsequently developing new‐onset graft dysfunction leading to a biopsy. Mean time from transplant to biopsy was 7.5 ± 6.1 years. Histologic findings and DSA were studied in relation to postbiopsy outcomes. Long‐term follow‐up confirms and expands the preliminary results of each of 3 studies: (1) increasing inflammation in area of atrophy (irrespective of inflammation in nonscarred areas [Banff i]) was associated with increasingly worse postbiopsy death‐censored graft survival; (2) hierarchical analysis based on Banff scores defined clusters (entities) that differed in long‐term death‐censored graft survival; and (3) C4d?/DSA? recipients had significantly better (and C4d+/DSA+ worse) death‐censored graft survival than other groups. C4d+/DSA‐ and C4d?/DSA+ had similar intermediate death‐censored graft survival. Clinical and histologic findings at the time of new‐onset graft dysfunction define high‐ vs low‐risk groups for long‐term death‐censored graft survival, even years posttransplant. These findings can help differentiate groups for potential intervention studies.     

Banff Histopathological Consensus Criteria for Preimplantation Kidney Biopsies

The Banff working group on preimplantation biopsy was established to develop consensus criteria (best practice guidelines) for the interpretation of preimplantation kidney biopsies. Digitally scanned slides were used (i) to evaluate interobserver variability of histopathologic findings, comparing frozen sections with formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tissue of wedge and needle core biopsies, and (ii) to correlate consensus histopathologic findings with graft outcome in a cohort of biopsies from international medical centers. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) and univariable and multivariable statistical analyses were performed. Good to fair reproducibility was observed in semiquantitative scores for percentage of glomerulosclerosis, arterial intimal fibrosis and interstitial fibrosis on frozen wedge biopsies. Evaluation of frozen wedge and core biopsies was comparable for number of glomeruli, but needle biopsies showed worse ICCs for glomerulosclerosis, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy. A consensus evaluation form is provided to help standardize the reporting of histopathologic lesions in donor biopsies. It should be recognized that histologic parameters may not correlate with graft outcome in studies based on organs deemed to be acceptable after careful clinical assessment. Significant limitations remain in the assessment of implantation biopsies.