Cinthia B. Drachenberg

Although pathologic classifications exist for several renal diseases, including IgA nephropathy, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, and lupus nephritis, a uniform classification for diabetic nephropathy is lacking. Our aim, commissioned by the Research Committee of the Renal Pathology Society, was to develop a consensus classification combining type1 and type 2 diabetic nephropathies. Such a classification should discriminate lesions by various degrees of severity that would be easy to use internationally in clinical practice. We divide diabetic nephropathy into four hierarchical glomerular lesions with a separate evaluation for degrees of interstitial and vascular involvement. Biopsies diagnosed as diabetic nephropathy are classified as follows: Class I, glomerular basement membrane thickening: isolated glomerular basement membrane thickening and only mild, nonspecific changes by light microscopy that do not meet the criteria of classes II through IV. Class II, mesangial expansion, mild (IIa) or severe (IIb): glomeruli classified as mild or severe mesangial expansion but without nodular sclerosis (Kimmelstiel-Wilson lesions) or global glomerulosclerosis in more than 50% of glomeruli. Class III, nodular sclerosis (Kimmelstiel-Wilson lesions): at least one glomerulus with nodular increase in mesangial matrix (Kimmelstiel-Wilson) without changes described in class IV. Class IV, advanced diabetic glomerulosclerosis: more than 50% global glomerulosclerosis with other clinical or pathologic evidence that sclerosis is attributable to diabetic nephropathy. A good interobserver reproducibility for the four classes of DN was shown (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.84) in a test of this classification.

Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy (PVAN) is an emerging cause of kidney transplant failure affecting 1-10% of patients. As uncertainty exists regarding risk factors, diagnosis, and intervention, an independent panel of experts reviewed the currently available evidence and prepared this report. Most cases of PVAN are elicited by BK virus (BKV) in the context of intense immunosuppression. No specific immunosuppressive drug is exclusively associated with PVAN, but most cases reported to date arise while the patient is on triple immunosuppressive combinations, often comprising tacrolimus and/or mycophenolate mofetil plus corticosteroids. Immunologic control of polyomavirus replication can be achieved by reducing, switching, and/or discontinuing components of the immunosuppressive regimen, but the individual's risk of rejection should be considered. The success rate of this intervention is increased with earlier diagnosis. Therefore, it is recommended that all renal transplant recipients should be screened for BKV replication in the urine: 1) every three months during the first two years posttransplant; 2) when allograft dysfunction is noted; and 3) when allograft biopsy is performed. A positive screening result should be confirmed in <4 weeks and assessed by quantitative assays (e.g. BKV DNA or RNA load in plasma or urine). Definitive diagnosis of PVAN requires allograft biopsy. If PVAN and concurrent acute rejection is diagnosed, antirejection treatment should be considered, coupled with subsequently reducing immunosuppression. The antiviral cidofovir is not approved for PVAN, but investigational use at low doses (0.25-0.33 mg/kg intravenously biweekly) without probenicid should be considered for refractory cases. Retransplantation after renal allograft loss to PVAN remains a treatment option for patients clearing polyomavirus replication.

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. 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.