Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Renal transplant biopsy specimen adequacy in a paediatric population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Updated guidelines on the diagnosis of acute allograft rejection including criteria for biopsy specimen adequacy were published in 1999. We sought to determine the adequacy of specimens in paediatric transplant patients and identify factors influencing adequacy. All renal transplant biopsies performed between 1998 and 2003 were classified as adequate (n =25), minimal (n =19) or inadequate (n =27) in accordance with the Banff 97 criteria, and the histological diagnoses were documented. The effect on specimen adequacy of grade of operator, method of sedation, age of child, needle gauge, number of cores and total core length was then investigated. Overall, a minimal or adequate specimen was obtained in 62% of cases. No histological diagnosis could be made in 30% of all specimens, just over half of which were inadequate. Higher rates of rejection were found in adequate (52%) than inadequate (33%) samples. The grade of operator (p =0.498), the age of the child at the time of biopsy (p =0.815) and type of sedation (p =0.188) did not affect adequacy. More than one core was obtained in 38 (54%) cases, and this was significantly associated with specimen adequacy (p <0.0005) as was longer total core length (p =0.002). Clinical features in isolation are not sufficient for the diagnosis of acute allograft rejection. Renal biopsy remains the gold standard and relies on adequate specimen collection. Our data shows that specimen adequacy according to the Banff 97 guidelines is achievable in children and that more than one core at the time of sampling significantly improves this achievement. Adequate sampling reduces the risk of an inconclusive histological diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Solez K, Axelsen RA, Bendiktsson H, Burdick JF, Cohen AH, Colvin RB, Croker BP, Droz D, Dunnill MS, Halloran PF, Hayry P, Mennette JC, Keown PA, Macussen N, Mihatsch MJ, Morozumi K, Myers BD, Nast CC, Olsen S, Racusen LC, Ramos EL, Rosen S, Sachs DH, Salomon DR, Sanfilippo F, Verani R, Von Willebrand E, Yamaguchi Y (1993) International standardization of criteria for the histological diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: The Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int 44:411–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, Bonsib SM, Castro MC, Cavallo T, Croker BP, Demetris AJ, Drachenberg CB, Fogo AB, Furness P, Gaber LW, Gibson IW, Glotz D, Goldberg JC, Grande J, Halloran PF, Hansen HE, Hartley B, Hayry PJ, Hill CM, Hoffman EO, Hunsicker LG, Lindblad AS, Marcussen N, Mihatsch MJ, Nadasdy T, Nickerson P, Olsen TS, Papadimitriou JC, Randhawa PS, Rayner DC, Roberts I, Rose S, Rush D, Salinas-Madrigal L, Salomon DR, Sund S, Taskinen E, Trpkov K, Yamaguchi Y (1999) The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 55(2):713–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Palomar R, Ruiz JC, Zubimendi JA, Cotorruelo JG, Hernandez H, Rodrigo E, Val Bernal JF, Arias M (2002) Is there any correlation between pathologic changes for acute rejection in kidney transplantation (Banff 97) and graft function? Transplant Proc 34:349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haas M, Kraus ES, Samaniego-Picota M, Racusen LC, Ni W, Eustace JA (2002) Acute renal allograft rejection with intimal arteritis: Histological predictors of response to therapy and graft survival. Kidney Int 61:1516–1526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tanaka T, Kyo M, Kokado Y, Takahara S, Hatori M, Suzuki K, Hasumi M, Toki K, Ichimaru N, Yazawa K, Hanafusa T, Namba Y, Oka K, Moriyama T, Imai E, Okuyama A, Yamanaka (2004) Correlation between the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft biopsies and clinical outcome. Transpl Int 17:59–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mueller A, Schnuelle P, Waldherr R, van der Woude F (2000) Impact of the Banff 97 classification for histological diagnosis of rejection on clinical outcome and renal function parameters after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 69(6):1123–1127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Racusen LC, Colvin RB, Solez K, Mihatsch MJ, Halloran PF, Campbell PM, Cecka MJ, Cosyns JP, Demetris AJ, Fishbein MC, Fogo A, Furness P, Gibson IW, Glotz D, Hayry P, Hunsickern L, Kashgarian M, Kerman R, Magil AJ, Montgomery R, Morozumi K, Nickeleit V, Randhawa P, Regele H, Seron D, Seshan S, Sund S, Trpkov K (2003) Antibody mediated rejection criteria—an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 3:708–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McDonald MW, Sosnowski JT, Mahin EJ, Willard DA, Lamm DL (1993) Automatic spring-loaded biopsy gun with ultrasonic control for renal transplant biopsy. Urology 42(5):580–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nicholson ML, Attard AR, Bell A, Donnelly PK, Veitch PS, Bell PRF (1990) Renal transplant biopsy using real-time ultrasound guidance. Br J Urol 65:564–565

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cahen R, Trolliet P, Jean G, Megri K, Dijoud F, Francois B (1995) Automated renal transplant biopsy with real-time ultrasonic guidance. Transplant Proc 27(2):1729–1730

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CLS, O’Connell P, Allen RDM, Chapman JR (2004) Evolution and pathophysiology of renal-transplant glomerulosclerosis. Transplantation 78(3):461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hussain F, Watson AR, Hayes J, Evans J (2003) Standards for renal biopsies: comparison of inpatient and day care procedures. Pediatr Nephrol 18:53–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quiroga I, Morris-Stiff G, Baboo R, Griffiths D, Baboola K, Moore R, Darby C, Lord R, Jurewicz AW (2001) The new Banff classification of renal transplant biopsies: a major impact on the adequacy of the cores taken. Transplant Proc 33:1154–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Beckingham IJ, Nicholson ML, Kirk G, Veitch PS, Bell PRF (1994) Comparison of three methods to obtain percutaneous needle core biopsies of a renal allograft. Br J Surg 81:898–899

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nicholson ML, Wheatley TJ, Doughman TM, White SA, Morgan JDT, Veitch PS, Furness PN (2000) A prospective randomized trial of three different sizes of core-cutting needle for renal transplant biopsy. Kidney Int 58(1):390–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vidhun J, Masciandro J, Varich L, Salvatierra O, Sarwal M (2003) Safety and risk stratification of percutaneous biopsies of adult-sized renal allografts in infant and older pediatric recipients. Transplantation 76(3):552–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beckingham IJ, Nicholson ML, Bell PRF (1994) Analysis of factors associated with complications following renal transplant needle core biopsy. Br J Urol 73:13–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Benfield MR, Herrin J, Feld L, Rose S, Stablein D, Tejani A (1999) Safety of kidney biopsy in pediatric transplantation: A report of the controlled clinical trials in pediatric transplantation trial of induction therapy study group. Transplantation 67(4):544–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Furness PN, Taub N (2001) International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: Report of the CERTPAP project. Kidney Int 60(5):1998–2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Howie AJ (2002) Problems with Banff. Transplantation 73(9):1383–1384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ, Banfi G, Cosyns JP, Dorman A, Hill CM, Kapper SK, Waldherr R, Laurinavicius A, Marcussen N, Martins AP, Nogueira M, Regele H, Seron D, Carrera M, Sund S, Taskinen EI, Paavonen T, Tihomirova T, Rosenthal R (2003) International variation in histological gradings is large and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Path 27(6):805–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nephrology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8SJ, UK

    Anne M. Durkan, T. James Beattie & Ian J. Ramage

  2. Department of Pathology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8SJ, UK

    Allan Howatson

  3. Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, G12 8QQ, UK

    John H. McColl

  4. Department of Nephrology, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X8, Canada

    Anne M. Durkan

Authors
  1. Anne M. Durkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. James Beattie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Allan Howatson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H. McColl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ian J. Ramage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne M. Durkan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Durkan, A.M., Beattie, T.J., Howatson, A. et al. Renal transplant biopsy specimen adequacy in a paediatric population. Pediatr Nephrol 21, 265–269 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-005-2076-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-005-2076-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation