Pre-implantation kidney biopsy: value of the expertise in determining histological score and comparison with the whole organ on a series of discarded kidneys.
Agreement
Biopsy score
Donor biopsy
Pre-implantation biopsy
Transplantation
Journal
Journal of nephrology
ISSN: 1724-6059
Titre abrégé: J Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9012268
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
06
06
2019
accepted:
10
08
2019
pubmed:
1
9
2019
medline:
8
6
2021
entrez:
1
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys. 46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated. Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters. Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Evidence about the reliability of pre-implantation biopsy is still conflicting, depending on both biopsy type and pathologist's expertise. Aim of the study is to evaluate the agreement of general v specialist pathologists and to compare scores on biopsy and whole organs in a set of discarded kidneys.
METHODS
METHODS
46 discarded kidneys were identified with their corresponding biopsies. The biopsies were reviewed by three general and two specialist pathologists, blinded to the original report, according to Remuzzi score. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both groups. Discarded kidneys were scored according to Remuzzi score by a single specialist pathologist. Biopsies and organs were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Weighted κ coefficients between biopsy and organ scores were also calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Specialist pathologists achieved higher values of ICC, reaching excellent or good agreement in most of the parameters, while general pathologists values were mainly fair or good. On whole organs, scores were consistently lower than biopsies, with a significant difference in most of the parameters. Weighted κ coefficient was slight or fair for most of the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our data suggests that the creation of a pool of specialist pathologists would improve organ utilization. Moreover, biopsies are not representative of the whole organ. As the Remuzzi score on biopsy is a major reasons for discard, a quota of transplantable kidneys may be erroneously discarded. Refinement in Remuzzi cut-offs based on expert reporting and recognition of sampling error of biopsies in correlation with clinical outcome data should be undertaken.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31471818
doi: 10.1007/s40620-019-00638-7
pii: 10.1007/s40620-019-00638-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
167-176Références
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008 Jan;132(1):37-42
pubmed: 18181671
Am J Transplant. 2008 Nov;8(11):2316-24
pubmed: 18801024
Kidney Int. 2005 Apr;67(4):1595-600
pubmed: 15780116
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Transplantation. 2000 Jun 15;69(11):2384-8
pubmed: 10868645
Transplantation. 2002 Nov 15;74(9):1281-6
pubmed: 12451266
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013 Nov;24(11):1913-23
pubmed: 23949799
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018 Mar;155:109-120
pubmed: 29512490
Am J Transplant. 2005 Aug;5(8):1992-6
pubmed: 15996250
Am J Transplant. 2017 Jan;17(1):140-150
pubmed: 27333454
Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 Jun;27(6):805-10
pubmed: 12766585
World J Transplant. 2018 Aug 9;8(4):110-121
pubmed: 30148077
Transplantation. 1999 Apr 27;67(8):1162-7
pubmed: 10232568
J Nephrol. 2019 Feb;32(1):57-64
pubmed: 30328092
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Oct;25(10):3401-8
pubmed: 20356979
J Pathol Inform. 2018 Oct 09;9:34
pubmed: 30450263
APMIS. 2018 Jan;126(1):3-8
pubmed: 29154394
Transplantation. 2001 May 27;71(10):1361-5
pubmed: 11391219
Histopathology. 2010 Jan;56(2):198-202
pubmed: 20102398
J Nephrol. 2019 Feb;32(1):129-137
pubmed: 29946864
Transplantation. 2016 Jul;100(7):1425-39
pubmed: 26599490
Am J Transplant. 2008 Nov;8(11):2325-34
pubmed: 18785957
Kidney Int. 2014 May;85(5):1161-8
pubmed: 24284518
Prog Transplant. 2019 Mar;29(1):36-42
pubmed: 30832558
Transplantation. 2013 Oct 15;96(7):633-8
pubmed: 23912171
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jan 26;354(4):343-52
pubmed: 16436766
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Mar;9(3):562-71
pubmed: 24558053
Transpl Int. 2016 Feb;29(2):234-40
pubmed: 26509885
Transplantation. 2014 Feb 27;97(4):426-32
pubmed: 24285339
Transplantation. 2017 Apr;101(4):867-872
pubmed: 27495758
Transpl Int. 2019 May;32(5):523-534
pubmed: 30636065