Abstract. The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving Ͻ50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving Ն50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.The morphologic changes in a renal biopsy from a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) comprise a spectrum of vascular, glomerular, and tubulointerstitial lesions. The classification of SLE nephritis has evolved over the past 40 years as more lesions were identified and defined. It has been an increasing challenge to apply new pathogenetic insights to the interpretation of the renal biopsy in SLE and to correlate pathologic findings with clinical symptoms, choice of treatment, and prognosis. The current classification, which was advanced in 1982 (1) and revised in 1995 (2), reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of renal injury in SLE nephritis. However, subsequent clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for clarification of the different categories and the diagnostic terminology. The clas-

No abstract

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving > or =50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.

Antibody‐mediated rejection (AbAR) is increasingly recognized in the renal allograft population, and successful therapeutic regimens have been developed to prevent and treat AbAR, enabling excellent outcomes even in patients highly sensitized to the donor prior to transplant. It has become critical to develop standardized criteria for the pathological diagnosis of AbAR. This article presents international consensus criteria for and classification of AbAR developed based on discussions held at the Sixth Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology in 2001. This classification represents a working formulation, to be revisited as additional data accumulate in this important area of renal transplantation.

The 10th Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held in Banff, Canada from August 9 to 14, 2009. A total of 263 transplant clinicians, pathologists, surgeons, immunologists and researchers discussed several aspects of solid organ transplants with a special focus on antibody mediated graft injury. The willingness of the Banff process to adapt continuously in response to new research and improve potential weaknesses, led to the implementation of six working groups on the following areas: isolated v-lesion, fibrosis scoring, glomerular lesions, molecular pathology, polyomavirus nephropathy and quality assurance. Banff working groups will conduct multicenter trials to evaluate the clinical relevance, practical feasibility and reproducibility of potential changes to the Banff classification. There were also sessions on quality improvement in biopsy reading and utilization of virtual microscopy for maintaining competence in transplant biopsy interpretation. In addition, compelling molecular research data led to the discussion of incorporation of omics-technologies and discovery of new tissue markers with the goal of combining histopathology and molecular parameters within the Banff working classification in the near future.

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.

SARS-CoV-2, the etiologic agent of COVID-19, is a global pandemic with substantial mortality dominated by acute respiratory distress syndrome. We systematically evaluated lungs of 68 autopsies from 3 institutions in heavily hit areas (2 USA, 1 Italy). Detailed evaluation of several compartments (airways, alveolar walls, airspaces, and vasculature) was performed to determine the range of histologic features. The cohort consisted of 47 males and 21 females with a median age of 73 years (range 30-96). Co-morbidities were present in most patients with 60% reporting at least three conditions. Tracheobronchitis was frequently present, independent from intubation or superimposed pneumonia. Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) was seen in 87% of cases. Later phases of DAD were less frequent and correlated with longer duration of disease. Large vessel thrombi were seen in 42% of cases but platelet (CD61 positive) and/or fibrin microthrombi were present at least focally in 84%. Ultrastructurally, small vessels showed basal membrane reduplication and significant endothelial swelling with cytoplasmic vacuolization. In a subset of cases, virus was detected using different tools (immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein, RNA in situ hybridization, lung viral culture, and electron microscopy). Virus was seen in airway epithelium and type 2 pneumocytes. IHC or in situ detection, as well as viable form (lung culture positive) was associated with the presence of hyaline membranes, usually within 2 weeks but up to 4 weeks after initial diagnosis. COVID-19 pneumonia is a heterogeneous disease (tracheobronchitis, DAD, and vascular injury), but with consistent features in three centers. The pulmonary vasculature, with capillary microthrombi and inflammation, as well as macrothrombi, is commonly involved. Viral infection in areas of ongoing active injury contributes to persistent and temporally heterogeneous lung damage.

No abstract