The XV. Banff conference for allograft pathology was held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics in Pittsburgh, PA (USA) and focused on refining recent updates to the classification, advances from the Banff working groups, and standardization of molecular diagnostics. This report on kidney transplant pathology details clarifications and refinements to the criteria for chronic active (CA) T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR). The main focus of kidney sessions was on how to address biopsies meeting criteria for CA TCMR plus borderline or acute TCMR. Recent studies on the clinical impact of borderline infiltrates were also presented to clarify whether the threshold for interstitial inflammation in diagnosis of borderline should be i0 or i1. Sessions on ABMR focused on biopsies showing microvascular inflammation in the absence of C4d staining or detectable donor‐specific antibodies; the potential value of molecular diagnostics in such cases and recommendations for use of the latter in the setting of solid organ transplantation are presented in the accompanying meeting report. Finally, several speakers discussed the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the potential for use of machine learning algorithms in diagnosis and personalized therapeutics in solid organ transplantation.

This meeting report from the XV Banff conference describes the creation of a multiorgan transplant gene panel by the Banff Molecular Diagnostics Working Group (MDWG). This Banff Human Organ Transplant (B‐HOT) panel is the culmination of previous work by the MDWG to identify a broadly useful gene panel based on whole transcriptome technology. A data‐driven process distilled a gene list from peer‐reviewed comprehensive microarray studies that discovered and validated their use in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant biopsies. These were supplemented by genes that define relevant cellular pathways and cell types plus 12 reference genes used for normalization. The 770 gene B‐HOT panel includes the most pertinent genes related to rejection, tolerance, viral infections, and innate and adaptive immune responses. This commercially available panel uses the NanoString platform, which can quantitate transcripts from formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded samples. The B‐HOT panel will facilitate multicenter collaborative clinical research using archival samples and permit the development of an open source large database of standardized analyses, thereby expediting clinical validation studies. The MDWG believes that a pathogenesis and pathway based molecular approach will be valuable for investigators and promote therapeutic decision‐making and clinical trials.

Higher rates of severe COVID‐19 have been reported in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) compared to non‐transplant patients. We aimed to determine if poorer outcomes were specifically related to chronic immunosuppression or underlying comorbidities. We used a 1:1 propensity score‐matching method to compare survival and severe disease‐free survival (defined as death and/or need for intensive care unit (ICU)) incidence in hospitalized KTRs and non‐transplant control patients between 26 February and 22 May 2020. Patients were matched for risk factors of severe COVID‐19: age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, preexisting cardiopathy, chronic lung disease and basal renal function. We included 100 KTRs (median age [interquartile range (IQR)]) 64.7 years (55.3‐73.1) in 3 French transplant centers. After a median follow‐up of 13 days (7‐30), transfer to ICU was required for 34 patients (34%) and death occurred in 26 patients (26%). Overall, 43 patients (43%) developed a severe disease during a median follow‐up of 8.5 days (2‐14). Propensity score matching to a large French cohort of 2017 patients hospitalized in 24 centers, revealed that survival was similar between KTRs and matched non‐transplant patients with respective 30‐days survival of 62.9% and 71% (p=0.38) and severe disease‐free 30‐days survival of 50.6% and 47.5% (p=0.91). These findings suggest that severity of COVID‐19 in KTRs is related to their associated comorbidities and not to chronic immunosuppression.

Male inpatients should receive close follow-up after their discharge, especially if they have a restrictive form of AN, present low BMI, or are older at admission.

Funding information Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program Novel tools are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy and risk prediction in BK virus nephropathy (BKVN). We assessed the utility of intragraft gene expression testing for these purposes. Eight hundred genes were measured in 110 archival samples, including a discovery cohort of native kidney BKVN (n = 5) vs pure T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR; n = 10). Five polyomavirus genes and seven immune-related genes (five associated with BKVN and two associated with TCMR) were significantly differentially expressed between these entities (FDR < 0.05). These three sets of genes were further evaluated in samples representing a spectrum of BK infection (n = 25), followed by a multicenter validation cohort of allograft BKVN (n = 60) vs TCMR (n = 10). Polyomavirus 5-gene set expression reliably distinguished BKVN from TCMR (validation cohort AUC = 0.992), but the immune gene sets demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic performance (AUC ≤ 0.720). Within the validation cohort, no significant | 3487 ADAM et Al.

No abstract

No abstract

PurposePatients, family members, and physicians participate in cancer care, but their perspectives about what is helpful during cancer treatment have rarely been compared. The aim of this study was to compare these three perspectives.MethodsMulticenter qualitative study (with previously published protocol) based on 90 semi-structured interviews. Participants (purposively selected until data saturation) came from three different subsamples: (i) patients with cancer (n=30), (ii) their relatives (n=30), and (iii) their referring physicians (n=10, interviewed more than once).ResultsOur analysis found 3 main axes (perceived positive effects of cancer treatment, perceived negative effects of cancer treatment, doctor-physician relationship), each composed of 2 main themes. The findings showed that patients, families, and physicians shared the long-term objective of increasing survival (while reducing side effects). However, patients and relatives also pointed out the importance of living with cancer each day and thus of factors helping them to live as well as possible in daily life. The physicians difficulty in coping with patients suffering may limit their access to elements that can improve patients capacity to live as well as possible.ConclusionsDuring cancer treatment (and not only at the end of life), attention should be given to enhancing the capacity of patients to live as well as possible (not only as long as possible) to meet the goals of patient-centered care and satisfy this important need of patients and families.