A 2020 Banff Antibody-mediatedInjury Working Group examination of international practices for diagnosing antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplantation - a cohort study.

The Banff antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) classification is vulnerable to misinterpretation, but the reasons are unclear. To better understand this vulnerability, we evaluated how ABMR is diagnosed in practice. To do this, the Banff Antibody-Mediated Injury Workgroup electronically surveyed an international cohort of nephrologists/surgeons (n = 133) and renal pathologists (n = 99). Most providers (97%) responded that they use the Banff ABMR classification at least sometimes, but DSA information is often not readily available. Only 41.1% (55/133) of nephrologists/surgeons and 19.2% (19/99) of pathologists reported that they always have DSA results when the biopsy is available. Additionally, only 19.6% (26/133) of nephrologists/surgeons responded that non-HLA antibody or molecular transcripts are obtained when ABMR histologic features are present but DSA is undetected. Several respondents agreed that histologic features concerning for ABMR in the absence of DSA and/or C4d are not well accounted for in the current classification [31.3% (31/99) pathologists and 37.6% (50/133) nephrologist/surgeons]. The Banff ABMR classification appears widely accepted, but efforts to improve the accessibility of DSA information for the multidisciplinary care team are needed. Further clarity is also needed in Banff ABMR nomenclature to account for the spectrum of ABMR and for histologic features suspicious for ABMR when DSA is absent.

Banff survey on antibody-mediated rejection clinical practices in kidney transplantation: Diagnostic misinterpretation has potential therapeutic implications.

The aim of this study was to determine how the Banff antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) classification for kidney transplantation is interpreted in practice and affects therapy. The Banff Antibody-Mediated Injury Workgroup electronically surveyed clinicians and pathologists worldwide regarding diagnosis and treatment for 6 case-based scenarios. The participants' (95 clinicians and 72 renal pathologists) assigned diagnoses were compared to the Banff intended diagnoses (reference standard). The assigned diagnoses and reference standard differed by 26.1% (SD 28.1%) for pathologists and 34.5% (SD 23.3%) for clinicians. The greatest discordance between the reference standard and clinicians' diagnosis was when histologic features of ABMR were present but donor-specific antibody was undetected (49.4% [43/87]). For pathologists, the greatest discordance was in the case of acute/active ABMR C4d staining negative in a positive crossmatch transplant recipient (33.8% [23/68]). Treatment approaches were heterogeneous but linked to the assigned diagnosis. When acute/active ABMR was diagnosed by the clinician, treatment was recommended 95.3% (SD 18.4%) of the time vs only 77.7% (SD 39.2%) of the time when chronic active ABMR was diagnosed (P < .0001). In conclusion, the Banff ABMR classification is vulnerable to misinterpretation, which potentially has patient management implications. Continued efforts are needed to improve the understanding and standardized application of ABMR classification in the transplant community.