The Revised (2013) Banff Classification for Antibody‐Mediated Rejection of Renal Allografts: Update, Difficulties, and Future Considerations. Issue 5 (4th February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Haas, M.
• Is Part Of: American journal of transplantation. Volume 16:Issue 5(2016:May)
• Page Start: 1352
• Page End: 1357
• Publication Date: 2016-02-04
• Subjects: Transplantation of organs, tissues, etc -- Periodicals; 617.95
• DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13661
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1600-6135

Abstract

Abstract : 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. Abstract : This minireview summarizes recent studies examining the validity of the revised (2013) Banff classification for antibody‐mediated rejection in renal allografts, compares it to earlier versions of this classification, and identifies the strengths of the revised classification and those aspects that require additional investigation. See also the article from De Serres et al onpage 1516 .