590 likes | 731 Views
Interpretation of sequential protocol biopsies in terms of prognosis and clinical implications. D. Serón Nephrology Department Hospital Vall d’Hebron Barcelona. Biopsy. SCr m mol/l. 300 250 200 150 100 50 0. 1 2 3 4 5 years. Lesions are too advanced
E N D
Interpretation of sequential protocol biopsies in terms of prognosis and clinical implications D. Serón Nephrology Department Hospital Vall d’Hebron Barcelona
Biopsy SCr mmol/l 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 years
Lesions are too advanced The biopsy was done too late There is nothing we can do
The assumption that renal allograft histology should be perfectly normal during quiescence has not been adequately investigated Burdick JF et al, Transplantation 1984; 38: 679
Characteristics of early routine renal allograft biopsies Protocol biopsies done at 1-4 weeks Quantification of interstitial infiltrates with a morphometric technique in HE stained biopsies Diagnosis N cel/mm2 interstitium __________________________________________ ATN in native kidney 9 451 101 Stable function 4 1290 179 Post-transplant ATN 7 1335 182 Acute rejection 5 2269 215* __________________________________________ Burdick JF et al, Transplantation 1984; 38: 679
Protocol biopsies Are lesions observed in protocol biopsies relevant from the clinical point of view?
CAN in (2y) protocol biopsies predictsrenal function deterioration N = 94 patients Stable Deteriorated _________________________________________ CADI 1.79 1.89 5.67 2.94 <0.0001 _________________________________________ Graft function deterioration: SCr >20% at 2-4y CADI: interstitial inflammation & fibrosis + glomerular sclerosis +mesangial matrix increase + vascular intimal proliferation + tubular atrophy Isoniemi H, Transplantation 1994
Chronic lesions at 6m and graft survival N = 89 patients %graft survival 100 CGD<6 (n=54) 80 CGD>6 (n=35) 60 40 p=0.0009 20 0 years 0 1 2 3 Dimény E, Clin Transplantation 1995; 58(11): 1195
% graft survival N=94 patients 100 Normal=53 80 CAN=41 60 40 p=0.024 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 years IF/TA is an independent predictor of graft survival RR 95% CI _____________________________ SCr 1.026 (1.005-1.0047) (mol/l) CAN 5.98 (1.15-31.25) (yes vs. no) _____________________________ Serón D, Kidney Int 1997: 51:310
Sirius red derived VIntFib and time to graft failure Grimm PC et al, J Am Soc Nephrol 2003
CAN, transplant vasculopathy and survival3 m protocol Bx, n=282 % deatt censored graft survival 100 Univariate Multivariate Variable RR 95%CI RR 95%CI __________________________________ SCr (mol/l) 1.009 (1.001-1.016) - Prot (g/l) 1.002 (1.001-1.004) - IF/TA 4.64 (1.44-14.95) 4.53(1.39-14.82) IF/TA (cv-score) 13.61(3.73-49.62) 9.45 (2.32-38.41) 80 Normal IF/TA 60 IF/TA (cv-score 1 40 20 p < 0.001 0 meses 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Serón D, Transplantation 2000; 69: 1849
SCR + IF/TA and graft survival95 pediatric recipients from a living donor 1 year protocol Bx Normal IF/TA without SCR IF/TA with SCR Shishido et al, JASN 2003; 14: 1046
Predicting decline in allograft functionBiopsy at 1 year (living 69%), Tx 1998-2001,n=292Primary endpoint: death censored graft loss or > 50% GFR beyond 1y Cosio FG et al, Am J Transplant 2005
1 Normal=186 SCR=74 .75 IF/TA=110 .5 IF/TA+SCR=65 .25 months 0 50 100 150 200 SCR, CAN and graft survivalProtocol Bx < 6m; n=435 Moreso F et al Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 747
Function and structure are independent predictors of outcome Moreso F et al. AJT 2006; 6: 747
Predictive value of clinical variables and different histological patterns on 7 y death censored graft survivaln=361 pts, protocol Bx before 6 m, follow up > 7y Surrogate Category Accuracy Sensitivity Specificity ______________________________________________________________ Acute rejection yes 72% 30% 80% 3-month SCr >1.8 mg/dl 73% 58% 76% Protocol biopsy IF/TA 67% 65% 67% Protocol biopsy IF/TA + cv-score 1 81% 21% 92% Protocol biopsy IF/TA + SCR 78% 31% 86% ______________________________________________________________ Seron D & Moreso F. Kidney Int 200; 72:690
Poor predictive value ofserum creatinine for renal allograft loss 1st RT > 17y, 1988-1999, at least 2y follow up SCr > 1.8 mg/dl Variable Follow up Obs %Failed OR CI AUC _____________________________________________________________________________ SCr at 1y 2y 74480 7.2 2.22 2.13-2.31 0.627 SCr at 1y 7y 35255 45.2 2.4 2.31-2.50 0.624 _____________________________________________________________________________ While renal function is a strong risk factor and highly correlated with graft failure, the utility of renal function as a predictive tool for graft loss is limited Kaplan B et al. AJT 2003; 3: 1560
GFR ROC AUC for graft failure at 5 yn=430 early protocol BX Banff score AUC = 0.679 (0.581 - 0.777); p=0.001 AUC = 0.685 (0.598 - 0.771); p=0.001 Unpublishedobservation
Histology is not only a predictive variable but a surrogate variable
SRL and CsA withdrawal SRL > 5 ng/mL CsA 150 - 400 ng/mL Steroids + + N = 525 Randomization 3m: n = 430 SRL+CsA, n = 215 SRL, n = 215
Mota A et al., AJT 2004; 4: 953 Oberbauer R, Transpl Int 2005; 1: 22 A reduction in CADI score is associated with improved survival
Risk Benefit
Questions How much contributes one protocol biopsy to predict outcome? Two sequential protocol biopsies improve the predictive value of histology
Questions How much contributes a protocol biopsy to predict outcome? Two Sequential protocol biopsies improve the predictive value of histology?
Inclusion criteria EARLY Prot Bx LATE Prot Bx Protocol Bx < 6m GFR (MDRD4) > 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 Proteinuria < 1g/day Stable function > 5 years of follow up Protocol Bx > 12-24 m
Patients and biopsies june 88-december 2003 Bx < 6m 458 Bx 12-24m 250 Bx < 6m 430 with tissue Bx 12-24m 231 with tissue
Statistical approachCox proportional hazard model a.) Predictive clinical variables b.) Predictive clinical and histologicalvariables
Characteristics of patients n=430 Donor age 37±17 Donor sex (%male) 70% Recipient age 46±14 Recipient sex (%male) 63% PRA (%) 7.5±19 HLA DR mm 0.63±0.58 CIT (h) 22±6 Retransplantation 64/430 (17.5%) VHC 16% DGF 17% Acute rejection 19% Graft loss 146 (33.2%) Death censored graft loss 104 (24.2%) Time of biopsy (months) 4.3±1.7 GFR ml/min/1.73m2 53±14 Proteinuria g/d 0.30±0.21
Histological data at the time of biopsy n=430 ______________________________ N glomeruli 13±8 N arteries 5±4 g 0.15±0.48 i 0.58±0.68 t 0.38±0.61 v 0.01±0.11 ah 0.16±0.45 Acute score 1.13±1.31 cg 0.13±0.34 ci 0.46±0.64 ct 0.45±0.62 cv 0.20±0.54 mm 0.25±0.45 Chronic score 1.24±1.65 ______________________________
Histological diagnosis and graft survival No SCR - no IF/TA P = 0.037 1 SCR - no IF/TA No SCR - IF/TA ,9 SCR - IF/TA ,8 no SCR - IF/TA Cum. Survival ,7 SCR - IF/TA ,6 ,5 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (months)
Is it worth to include histology in multivariate models to predict graft survival?
The contribution of histology to predict death-censored graft failure Model 1 Model 2 Clinical variables Clinical + histological variables Donorage Recipientage PRA GFR Histology Donor age Recipient age, PRA, GFR
The contribution of histology to predict death-censored graft failure Model 1 Model 2 Clinical variables Clinical + histological variables Donorage Recipientage PRA GFR Histology Donor age Recipient age, PRA, GFR
The contribution of histology to predict death-censored graft failure Donor age years Recipient age years PRA % GFR ml/min/1.73m2 Histology yes/no
The contribution of histology to predict death-censored graft failure Donor age years Recipient age years PARA % GFR ml/min Histology yes/no risk
Beta coefficient of Cox regression model to calculate risk scores H(t)=H0(t) x exp (β1x1+ β2x2+ β3x3+…+ βkxk) Variable β coefficientβ coefficient without histology with histology ___________________________________________________ Donor age (year) +0.020 (+2.0) +0.020 (+2.0) Patient age (year) -0.035 (-3.5) -0.035 (-3.5) GFR (ml/min) -0.024 (-2.4) -0.022 (-2.2) PARA (%) +0.011 (+1.1) +0.011 (+1.1) SCR&IF/TA n.a. +0.559 (+55.9) ____________________________________________________
Beta coefficient of Cox regression model to calculate risk scores Risk score without histology=(2*Donor age)+ (-3.5*patient age)+ (-2.4*GFR)+ (1.1*PRA) Risk score with histology=(2*Donor age)+ (-3.5*patient age)+ (-2.2*GFR)+(1.1*PRA)+(55.9*SCR&IF/TA)
Classification of patients according to risk scores Q3 Q4 Q2 Q1 Risk score
With histology Without histology p<0.0001
Changes in quartile classification due to inclusion of histology in the statistical model: 15%
1 Q1 ,8 Q2 ,6 Cum. Survival Q3 ,4 Q4 ,2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time Death censored graft failure using quartiles of risk scores Without histology With histology 1 Q1 ,8 Q2 ,6 Cum. Survival Q3 ,4 Q4 ,2 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time months months
Validation Modelling sample Testing sample
Two sequential biopsies N=231 6m 12-24m _____________________________________________ Time of biopsy (M) 4.3±1.7 16.5±6.0 GFR ml/min/1.73m2 53±14 52±15 ns Proteinuria g/d 0.30±0.21 0.37±0.49 0.01 ______________________________________________