The Banff classification revisited

Kidney International

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 201-206

  Solez, Kim ^a   Racusen, Lorraine C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

central slide review; consensus generation; genomics; history of transplantation; technology and future of medicine course; transplantation pathology

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CONSENSUS; GENOMICS; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOLOGY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MORPHOMETRICS; ORGANIZATIONAL DOWNSIZING; ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RENAL GRAFT DYSFUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SAMPLING ERROR; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYNDROME DELINEATION;

EID: 84873412432     PISSN: 00852538     EISSN: 15231755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2012.395     Document Type: Short Survey

References (39)

1. Solez K. History of the Banff classification of kidney allograft pathology as it approaches its twentieth year. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2010; 15: 49-51.
2. Billingham ME, Cary NR, Hammond ME 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. J Heart Transplant 1990; 9: 587-593.
3. Solez K, Axelsen RA, Benediktsson H et al. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int 1993; 44: 411-422.
4. An International Panel. Banff schema for grading liver allograft rejection: an international consensus document. Hepatology 1997; 25: 658-663, Review.
5. Drachenberg CB, Odorico J, Demetris AJ. Banff schema for grading pancreas allograft rejection: working proposal by a multi-disciplinary international consensus panel. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 1237-1249.
6. Cendales LC, Kanitakis J, Schneeberger S et al. The Banff 2007 working classification of skin-containing composite tissue allograft pathology. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 1396-1400.
7. Isoniemi HM, Krogerus L, von Willebrand E et al. Histopathological findings in well-functioning, long-term renal allografts. Kidney Int 1992; 41: 155-160.
8. Solez K, Hansen HE, Kornerup HJ et al. Clinical validation and reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Trans Proc 1995; 27: 1009-1011.
9. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Alloway RR et al. Correlation between Banff classification, acute renal rejection scores and reversal of rejection. Kidney Int 1996; 49: 481-487.
10. Marcussen N, Olsen TS, Benediktsson H et al. Reproducibility of the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology: inter-and intra-observer variation. Transplantation 1995; 60: 1083-1089.
11. Rush DN, Jeffery JR, Gough J. Sequential protocol biopsies in renal transplant patients. Clinico-pathological correlations using the Banff schema. Transplantation 1995; 59: 511-514.
12. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Gaber AO et al. Correlation of histology to clinical rejection reversal: a thymoglobulin multicenter trial report. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 2415-2422.
13. Sis B, Jhangri GS, Riopel J et al. A new diagnostic algorithm for antibody-mediated microcirculation inflammation in kidney transplants. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 1168-1179.
14. Solez K, Benediktsson H, Cavallo T et al. Report of the Third Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology (July 20-24, 1995) on classification and lesion scoring in renal allograft pathology. Transplant Proc 1996; 28: 441-444.
15. Colvin RB, Cohen AH, Saiontz C et al. Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997; 8: 1930-1941.
16. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999; 55: 713-723.
17. Solez K, Racusen L. Fourth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology CD-ROM. Churchill Livingstone: Philadelphia, PA, 1999; http://cybernephrology. ualberta.ca/Banff/1997/Videos/1997 Videos.htm.
18. Collins AB, Schneeberger EE, Pascual MA et al. Complement activation in acute humoral renal allograft rejection: diagnostic significance of C4d deposits in peritubular capillaries. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999; 10: 2208-2214.
19. Racusen LC, Colvin RB, Solez K et al. Antibody-mediated rejection criteria-an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 2003; 3: 708-714.
20. Drachenberg CB, Torrealba JR, Nankivell BJ et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in pancreas allografts-updated Banff grading schema. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1792-1802.
21. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin R et al. Fibrosis and atrophy in the renal allograft-interim report and new directions. Am J Transplant 2002; 2: 203-206.
22. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC et al. Banff 05 meeting report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 518.
23. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology; update and future directions. Am J Transplant 2008; 8: 753.
24. Sis B, Mengel M, Haas M et al. Banff '09 meeting report: antibody mediated graft deterioration and implementation of Banff working groups. Am J Transplant 2010; 10: 464-471.
25. Mengel M, Sis B, Haas M et al. Banff 2011 meeting report: new concepts in antibody-mediated rejection. Banff meeting report writing committee. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 563-570.
26. Howie AJ. Problems with BANFF. Transplantation. 2002;73(9):1383-4
27. McCarthy GP, Roberts IS. Diagnosis of acute renal allograft rejection: evaluation of the Banff 97 Guidelines for Slide Preparation. Transplantation 2002; 73: 1518-1521.
28. Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 805-810.
29. Farris AB, Adams CD, Brousaides N et al. Morphometric and visual evaluation of fibrosis in renal biopsies. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 22: 176-186.
30. Farris AB, Chan S, Climenhaga J et al. The Banff Fibrosis Trial for reproducibility and clinical significance of visual assessment of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies. American Transplant Congress 2012, abstract #185.
31. Elshafie M, Furness PN. Identification of lesions indicating rejection in kidney transplant biopsies: tubulitis is severely under-detected by conventional microscopy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012; 27: 1252-1255.
32. Chang JH, Mohan S, Crew RJ et al. Acute antibody mediated rejection with isolated endarteritis in kidney transplants portend worse prognosis. American Transplant Congress 2012, abstract #62.
33. de Freitas DG, Sellarés J, Mengel M et al. The nature of biopsies with 'borderline rejection' and prospects for eliminating this category. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 191-201.
34. Moulavi D, Hajiloo M, Sander J et al. Combining gene expression and interaction network data to improve kidney lesion score prediction. Int J Bioinform Res Appl 2012; 8: 54-66.
35. Demetris A, Adams D, Bellamy C et al. Update of the International Banff Schema for Liver Allograft Rejection: working recommendations for the histopathologic staging and reporting of chronic rejection. An International Panel. Hepatology 2000; 31: 792-799.
36. Solez K, Hales M, Katz SM. Electronic strategies for information and research: cyberNephrology/cyberMedicine in the emerging world. Kidney Int Suppl 2005; 98: S89-S94.
37. Colvin RB. Getting out of flatland: into the third dimension of microarrays. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(12):2650-1.
38. Mueller TF, Einecke G, Reeve J, et al. Microarray analysis of rejection in human kidney transplants using pathogenesis-based transcript sets. Am J Transplant 2007; 7: 2712-2722.
39. Nehme CC, Santos MM, Filho LF. Challenges in communicating the outcomes of a foresight study to advise decision-makers on policy and strategy. Sci Public Policy 2012; 39: 245-257.