Surya V. Seshan

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving > or = 50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.

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.

Antibody‐mediated rejection (AbAR) is increasingly recognized in the renal allograft population, and successful therapeutic regimens have been developed to prevent and treat AbAR, enabling excellent outcomes even in patients highly sensitized to the donor prior to transplant. It has become critical to develop standardized criteria for the pathological diagnosis of AbAR. This article presents international consensus criteria for and classification of AbAR developed based on discussions held at the Sixth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in 2001. This classification represents a working formulation, to be revisited as additional data accumulate in this important area of renal transplantation. Antibody‐mediated rejection (AbAR) is increasingly recognized in the renal allograft population, and successful therapeutic regimens have been developed to prevent and treat AbAR, enabling excellent outcomes even in patients highly sensitized to the donor prior to transplant. It has become critical to develop standardized criteria for the pathological diagnosis of AbAR. This article presents international consensus criteria for and classification of AbAR developed based on discussions held at the Sixth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in 2001. This classification represents a working formulation, to be revisited as additional data accumulate in this important area of renal transplantation.