In 1990, an international grading system for cardiac allograft biopsies was adopted by the International Society for Heart Transplantation. This system has served the heart transplant community well, facilitating communication between transplant centers, especially with regard to patient management and research. In 2004, under the direction of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), a multidisciplinary review of the cardiac biopsy grading system was undertaken to address challenges and inconsistencies in its use and to address recent advances in the knowledge of antibody-mediated rejection. This article summarizes the revised consensus classification for cardiac allograft rejection. In brief, the revised (R) categories of cellular rejection are as follows: Grade 0 R--no rejection (no change from 1990); Grade 1 R--mild rejection (1990 Grades 1A, 1B and 2); Grade 2 R--moderate rejection (1990 Grade 3A); and Grade 3 R--severe rejection (1990 Grades 3B and 4). Because the histologic sub-types of Quilty A and Quilty B have never been shown to have clinical significance, the "A" and "B" designations have been eliminated. Recommendations are also made for the histologic recognition and immunohistologic investigation of acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) with the expectation that greater standardization of the assessment of this controversial entity will clarify its clinical significance. Technical considerations in biopsy processing are also addressed. This consensus revision of the Working Formulation was approved by the ISHLT Board of Directors in December 2004.

No abstract

A comprehensive list of recommendations is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of HLA antibodies in solid organ transplantation. The recommendations are intended to provide state-of-the-art guidance in the use and clinical application of recently developed methods for HLA antibody detection when used in conjunction with traditional methods.

The XIII Banff meeting, held in conjunction the Canadian Society of Transplantation in Vancouver, Canada, reviewed the clinical impact of updates of C4d‐negative antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) from the 2013 meeting, reports from active Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor‐specific antibody tests (anti‐HLA and non‐HLA) with transplant histopathology, and questions of molecular transplant diagnostics. The use of transcriptome gene sets, their resultant diagnostic classifiers, or common key genes to supplement the diagnosis and classification of rejection requires further consensus agreement and validation in biopsies. Newly introduced concepts include the i‐IFTA score, comprising inflammation within areas of fibrosis and atrophy and acceptance of transplant arteriolopathy within the descriptions of chronic active T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) or chronic ABMR. The pattern of mixed TCMR and ABMR was increasingly recognized. This report also includes improved definitions of TCMR and ABMR in pancreas transplants with specification of vascular lesions and prospects for defining a vascularized composite allograft rejection classification. The goal of the Banff process is ongoing integration of advances in histologic, serologic, and molecular diagnostic techniques to produce a consensus‐based reporting system that offers precise composite scores, accurate routine diagnostics, and applicability to next‐generation clinical trials.

No abstract

These data show that the Cylex ImmuKnow assay has a high negative predictive value and provides a target immunological response zone for minimizing risk and managing patients to stability.

BACKGROUND The problem of AMR remains unsolved because standardized schemes for diagnosis and treatment remains contentious. Therefore, a consensus conference was organized to discuss the current status of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in heart transplantation. METHODS The conference included 83 participants (transplant cardiologists, surgeons, immunologists and pathologists) representing 67 heart transplant centers from North America, Europe, and Asia who all participated in smaller break-out sessions to discuss the various topics of AMR and attempt to achieve consensus. RESULTS A tentative pathology diagnosis of AMR was established, however, the pathologist felt that further discussion was needed prior to a formal recommendation for AMR diagnosis. One of the most important outcomes of this conference was that a clinical definition for AMR (cardiac dysfunction and/or circulating donor-specific antibody) was no longer believed to be required due to recent publications demonstrating that asymptomatic (no cardiac dysfunction) biopsy-proven AMR is associated with subsequent greater mortality and greater development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. It was also noted that donor-specific antibody is not always detected during AMR episodes as the antibody may be adhered to the donor heart. Finally, recommendations were made for the timing for specific staining of endomyocardial biopsy specimens and the frequency by which circulating antibodies should be assessed. Recommendations for management and future clinical trials were also provided. CONCLUSIONS The AMR Consensus Conference brought together clinicians, pathologists and immunologists to further the understanding of AMR. Progress was made toward a pathology AMR grading scale and consensus was accomplished regarding several clinical issues.

Standardization of immunophenotyping requires careful attention to reagents, sample handling, instrument setup, and data analysis, and is essential for successful cross-study and cross-center comparison of data. Experts developed five standardized, eight-color panels for identification of major immune cell subsets in peripheral blood. These were produced as pre-configured, lyophilized, reagents in 96-well plates. We present the results of a coordinated analysis of samples across nine laboratories using these panels with standardized operating procedures (SOPs). Manual gating was performed by each site and by a central site. Automated gating algorithms were developed and tested by the FlowCAP consortium. Centralized manual gating can reduce cross-center variability, and we sought to determine whether automated methods could streamline and standardize the analysis. Within-site variability was low in all experiments, but cross-site variability was lower when central analysis was performed in comparison with site-specific analysis. It was also lower for clearly defined cell subsets than those based on dim markers and for rare populations. Automated gating was able to match the performance of central manual analysis for all tested panels, exhibiting little to no bias and comparable variability. Standardized staining, data collection, and automated gating can increase power, reduce variability, and streamline analysis for immunophenotyping.