Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

25 Pathology of Kidney Transplantation ALTON B. FARRIS III, LYNN D. CORNELL and ROBERT B. COLVIN CHAPTER OUTLINE Renal Allograft Biopsy Optimal Tis...

4MB Sizes 1 Downloads 277 Views


Pathology of Kidney Transplantation ALTON B. FARRIS III, LYNN D. CORNELL and ROBERT B. COLVIN


Renal Allograft Biopsy Optimal Tissue Microscopy Classification of Pathologic Diagnoses in the Renal Allograft Donor Kidney Biopsy Hyperacute Rejection Acute Renal Allograft Rejection Acute T-Cell-Mediated Rejection Tubulointerstitial Rejection (Type I) Endarteritis (Type II Rejection) Glomerular Lesions Atypical Rejection Syndromes Differential Diagnosis Acute Antibody-Mediated Rejection Diagnostic Criteria Pathologic Features C4d Interpretation C4d Negative Antibody-Mediated Rejection Differential Diagnosis Accommodation Complement Inhibition Classification Systems Late Graft Diseases Chronic Antibody-Mediated-Rejection Transplant Glomerulopathy Peritubular Capillary and Tubulointerstitial Lesions Transplant Arteriopathy Chronic T-Cell-Mediated Rejection Other Specific Diagnoses Interstitial Fibrosis and Tubular Atrophy

Protocol Biopsies Acute Tubular Necrosis Calcineurin Inhibitor Nephrotoxicity Acute Calcineurin Inhibitor Toxicity Toxic Tubulopathy Acute Arteriolar Toxicity and Thrombotic Microangiopathy Differential Diagnosis Chronic Calcineurin Inhibitor Toxicity CNI-Arteriolopathy Glomerular Lesions Tubules and Interstitium Differential Diagnosis Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Toxicity Drug-Induced Acute Tubulointerstitial Nephritis Infections Polyomavirus Tubulointerstitial Nephritis Adenovirus Acute Pyelonephritis Major Renal Vascular Disease De Novo Glomerular Disease Membranous Glomerulonephritis ANTI-GBM Nephritis De Novo Podocytopathy in Congenital Nephrosis Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis Recurrent Renal Disease Posttransplant Malignancy and Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disease Future Directions in Biopsy Assessment


AMR  antibody-mediated rejection ATN  acute tubular necrosis CAN  chronic allograft nephropathy CMV  cytomegalovirus CNI  calcineurin inhibitor CNIT  calcineurin inhibitor toxicity DGF  delayed graft function DSA  donor-specific antibody

EM  electron microscopy FSGS  focal segmental glomerulosclerosis GBM  glomerular basement membrane HLA  human leukocyte antigen IFTA  interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy MGN  membranous glomerulonephritis MPGN  membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis



Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

PAS  periodic acid-Schiff PTC  peritubular capillary PTLD  posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease PTN  polyomavirus tubulointerstitial nephritis

Renal Allograft Biopsy Renal biopsy remains the “gold standard” for the diagnosis of episodes of graft dysfunction that occur commonly in patients after transplantation. Studies have indicated that the results of a renal allograft biopsy change the clinical diagnosis in 30% to 42% and therapy in 38% to 83% of patients, even after the first year.1–4 Most important, unnecessary immunosuppression was avoided in 19% of patients.3 The biopsy is also a gold mine of information on pathogenetic mechanisms, a generator of hypotheses that can be tested in experimental animal studies and in clinical trials. Finally, the biopsy serves, in turn, to validate the hypothesis tested in such trials. Renal biopsy interpretation currently relies primarily on histopathology complemented by immunologic molecular probes. Quantitative gene expression analysis methods may be implemented more in the future as those techniques are further validated and approved for clinical use.5–8 This chapter describes the relevant light, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopy (EM) findings of the most common lesions affecting the renal allograft and their differential diagnosis, citing references largely limited to human pathologic studies after 1990. The discussion is broadly divided into allograft rejection and nonrejection pathology, with an emphasis on differential diagnosis of acute and chronic allograft dysfunction. Grading systems of acute and chronic rejection are discussed further in those sections. Additional references and details are available in a comprehensive review.9

OPTIMAL TISSUE At least seven nonsclerotic glomeruli and two arteries (bigger than arterioles) must be present in a renal allograft biopsy for adequate evaluation.10,11 Using these criteria, the sensitivity of a single core is approximately 90%, and the predicted sensitivity of two cores is about 99%.11 However, adequacy depends entirely on the lesions seen in the biopsy: one artery with endarteritis is sufficient for the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection (TCMR), even if no glomerulus is present; similarly, immunofluorescence or EM of one glomerulus is adequate to diagnose membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN). In contrast, a large portion of cortex with a minimal infiltrate does not exclude rejection. Subcapsular cortex often shows inflammation and fibrosis and is not representative. Diagnosis of certain diseases is even possible with only medulla (acute humoral rejection [acute AMR], polyomavirus tubulointerstitial nephritis [PTN]). However, a normal medulla does not rule out rejection.12 Frozen sections for light microscopy are of limited value, because frozen artifacts preclude accurate evaluation. The diagnostic accuracy of frozen sections was 89% compared

TCMR  T cell-mediated rejection TG  transplant glomerulopathy TBM  tubular basement membrane TMA  thrombotic microangiopathy

with paraffin sections.13 Rapid (2-hour) formalin/paraffin processing is used at Massachusetts General Hospital for urgent and weekend biopsies. 

MICROSCOPY The biopsy is examined for glomerular, tubular, vascular, and interstitial pathology including: (1) transplant glomerulitis, glomerulopathy, and de novo or recurrent glomerulonephritis; (2) tubular injury, isometric vacuolization, tubulitis, atrophy, or intranuclear viral inclusions; (3) endarteritis, fibrinoid necrosis, thrombi, myocyte necrosis, nodular medial hyalinosis, or chronic allograft arteriopathy; (4) interstitial infiltrates of activated mononuclear cells, edema, or neutrophils, fibrosis, and scarring. Arteries and arterioles are particularly scrutinized, because the diagnostic lesion often lies there. A typical immunofluorescence panel (used at Massachusetts General Hospital) detects IgG, IgA, IgM, C3, kappa and lambda light chains, C4d, albumin, and fibrin in cryostat sections. C4d, a complement fragment, is used to identify AMR; the other stains are primarily for recurrent or de novo glomerulonephritis.14 Immunohistochemistry (IHC) in paraffin sections is indicated in the differential diagnosis of lymphoproliferative or viral diseases and may be used for C4d. EM is valuable when de novo or recurrent glomerular disease is suspected and to evaluate peritubular capillary (PTC) basement membranes.15 

CLASSIFICATION OF PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSES IN THE RENAL ALLOGRAFT The ideal diagnostic classification of renal allograft pathology should be based on pathogenesis, have therapeutic relevance, and be reproducible. The current classification based on Banff and other systems (Table 25.1), meets these criteria.16,17 

Donor Kidney Biopsy Biopsy of the cadaveric donor kidney is sometimes used to determine the suitability of the kidney for transplantation. Objective pathologic criteria based on outcome that could be applied to the renal biopsy as a screening test have not been fully established, as donor biopsies are not always performed and controlled trials have not been done. One of the major problems in assessing the donor kidney is that this is usually done with cryostat sections, often by local pathologists in the middle of the night. Using arbitrary criteria risks that kidneys will be discarded needlessly. In several large studies, the outcome at 1 to 5 years has not measurably correlated with pathologic lesions.18–20

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

TABLE 25.1  Pathologic Classification of Renal Allograft Disease16 I. Immunologic rejection A. Hyperacute rejection B. Acute rejection a. Acute T-cell-mediated rejection (acute cellular rejection, C4d−) i. Tubulointerstitial (Banff type I) ii. Endarteritis (Banff type II) iii. Arterial fibrinoid necrosis/transmural inflammation (Banff type III) iv.  Glomerular (transplant glomerulitis; no Banff type) b. Acute AMR (acute humoral rejection, C4d+) i. Tubular injury ii. Capillaritis/thrombotic microangiopathy iii. Arterial fibrinoid necrosis C. Chronic rejection a. Chronic T-cell-mediated rejection (with T cell activity) b. Chronic antibody-mediated rejection (with antibody activity, C4d+) II. Allo-/autoantibody-mediated diseases of allografts A. Anti-GBM disease in Alport’s syndrome B. Nephrotic syndrome in nephrin-deficient recipients C. Anti-TBM disease in TBM antigen-deficient recipients D. De novo membranous glomerulonephritis E. Antiangiotensin II receptor autoantibody syndrome III. Nonrejection injury A. Acute ischemic injury or other causes of acute tubular injury/ necrosis (ATN) B. Drug toxicity □ Calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine, tacrolimus) □ mTOR inhibitors (sirolimus, everolimus, rapamycin) □ Drug-induced interstitial nephritis C. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis (drug allergy) D. Infection (viral, bacterial, fungal) (e.g., BK virus nephropathy, pyelonephritis) E. Major artery/vein thrombosis F. Mechanical □ Obstruction □ Urine leak G. Renal artery stenosis H. Arteriosclerosis I. De novo glomerular disease/glomerulopathy (other than transplant glomerulopathy) J. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) K. Chronic allograft nephropathy, not otherwise classified (interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy) IV. Recurrent primary disease A. Immunologic (e.g., IgA nephropathy, lupus nephritis, anti-GBM disease) B. Metabolic (e.g., amyloidosis, diabetes, oxalosis) C. Unknown (e.g., dense deposit disease, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis)

As rejection and patient death from complications diminish, the influence of the quality of the graft is likely to increase. Both donor biopsies and reperfusion biopsies can be quite helpful in assessing the baseline status of the graft, although reperfusion biopsies do not provide aid in donor selection.21 Glomerulosclerosis is one feature that is readily assessed in frozen section, by the most casual observation. Glomerulosclerosis >20% correlates with poor graft outcome In several studies, donor serum creatinine did not distinguish the different degrees of glomerulosclerosis found on biopsy,22–24 although that has been demonstrated by other studies.20 In one study, the odds ratio for poor outcome remained significant after adjustment for donor age, rejection episodes, or panel reactive antibody.23 Five-year graft survival was


strikingly diminished in recipients of grafts with >20% glomerulosclerosis compared with those 0% sclerosis (35% vs. 80%).24 However, other large studies have failed to detect a major effect of glomerulosclerosis >20%, if adjusted for the age of the donor25 or renal function.26 At least 25 glomeruli are needed to correlate with outcome.27 A wedge biopsy may not be representative, because it includes mostly outer cortex, the zone where glomerulosclerosis and fibrosis due to vascular disease is most severe, therefore a needle biopsy is recommended. Even though many other studies try to correlate fibrosis or vascular disease, reproducibility of scoring these lesions, even on permanent sections in broad daylight, is notoriously poor.28 At this time histologic evaluation is recommended in donors with any evidence of renal dysfunction, a family history of renal disease, or whose age is >60 years. Histologic selection of optimal kidneys from donors over age 60 years can result in a graft survival rate similar to that of grafts from younger patients.29 Other lesions may cause the transplant surgeon or pathologist to argue against use of the graft. Arterial intimal fibrosis increases the risk of delayed graft function (DGF)30 and has a slight effect on 2-year graft survival (6% decrease).31 Thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with widespread but less than 50% glomerular thrombi increases the likelihood of DGF and primary nonfunction,25 but unaltered 2-year graft survival can still be observed.32 Likewise, deceased donor kidneys with fibrin thrombi in up to essentially 100% of glomeruli due to presumed disseminated intravascular coagulation have been transplanted successfully with initial DGF but eventual stable allograft function.33 Despite initial DGF, It has been shown that donor-derived glomerular fibrin thrombi can resolve after donor kidney transplantation,34 sometimes quite rapidly.35 Reversal of diabetic glomerulosclerosis36 and IgA nephropathy have been reported,37 as well as membranous glomerulonephritis,38 lupus nephritis,39 membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN),40 and endotheliosis due to preeclampsia (personal observation). 

Hyperacute Rejection Hyperacute rejection refers to immediate rejection (typically within minutes to hours) of the kidney upon perfusion with recipient blood, where the recipient is presensitized to alloantigens on the surface of the graft endothelium. During surgery, the graft kidney becomes soft and flabby; and livid, mottled, purple, or cyanotic in color; and urine output ceases. The kidney subsequently swells, and widespread hemorrhagic cortical necrosis and medullary congestion appears. The large vessels are sometimes thrombosed. Early lesions show marked accumulation of platelets in glomerular capillaries’ lumina that appear as amorphous, pale pink, finely granular masses in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides (negative on periodic acid Schiff [PAS] stains). Neutrophil and platelet margination then occur over the next hour or so along damaged endothelium of small arteries, arterioles, glomeruli, and PTCs, and the capillaries fill with a sludge of compacted red cells and fibrin.41 The larger arteries are usually spared. The neutrophils do not infiltrate initially but form “chain-like” figures in the PTCs without obvious thrombi.41 The endothelium is stripped off


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

the underlying basal lamina, and the interstitium becomes edematous and hemorrhagic. Intravascular coagulation occurs and cortical necrosis ensues over 12 to 24 hours. The medulla is relatively spared, but is ultimately affected as the whole kidney becomes necrotic.42 Widespread microthrombi are usually found in the arterioles and glomeruli and can be detected even in totally necrotic samples. The small arteries may show fibrinoid necrosis. Mononuclear infiltrates are typically sparse. One case showed CD3+ cells in the adventitia of small arteries and in the surrounding interstitium.43 By EM, neutrophils attach to injured glomerular endothelial cells.41 The endothelium is swollen— separated from the glomerular basement membrane (GBM) by a lucent space. Capillary loops and PTCs are often bare of endothelium. Platelet, fibrin thrombi, and trapped erythrocytes occlude capillaries.16 The site of antibody and complement deposition is determined by the site of the target endothelial alloantigens. Hyperacute rejection due to preexisting anti-HLA class I antibodies may show C3, C4d, and fibrin throughout the microvasculature.44 ABO antibodies (primarily IgM) also deposit in all vascular endothelium. Cases with anticlass II antibodies may have IgG/IgM primarily in glomerular capillaries and peritubular capillaries, where class II is normally conspicuous.45 In antiendothelial-monocyte antigen cases, IgG is primarily in PTCs, rather than glomeruli or arteries.46 Often antibodies cannot be detected in the vessels,47 even though they can be eluted from the kidney.48,49 In these cases C4d should be positive in PTCs14 and more useful than immunoglobulin stains. Occasional cases, particularly intraoperative biopsies, may be negative for C4d (A. H. Cohen, Cedar Sinai Hospital, Los Angeles, personal communication), perhaps related to focally decreased perfusion or insufficient time to generate substantial C4d amounts.16 The differential diagnosis of hyperacute rejection includes ischemia and major vascular thrombosis.16 The major diagnostic feature of hyperacute rejection is C4d deposition in PTCs and the prominence of neutrophils in capillaries. Although the finding of antibody and C4d deposition in PTCs is diagnostic when present, negative immunofluorescence stains do not exclude hyperacute rejection. Exogenous antibody (rabbit or horse antilymphocyte serum) can cause severe endothelial injury sometimes with C4d deposition mimicking hyperacute rejection.50 Hyperacute rejection typically has more hemorrhage, necrosis, and neutrophil accumulation in glomeruli and PTCs than acute tubular necrosis (ATN), although glomerular neutrophils alone are associated with ischemia.51 Major arterial thrombosis has predominant necrosis with little hemorrhage or microthrombi and PTC neutrophils are not prominent. Renal vein thrombosis shows marked congestion and relatively little neutrophil response. 

Acute Renal Allograft Rejection Acute rejection typically develops in the first 2 to 6 weeks after transplantation, but can arise in a normally functioning kidney from 3 days to 10 years or more, or in a graft affected by other conditions, such as ATN, calcineurin inhibitor toxicity, or chronic rejection. Acute rejection may be cell mediated, humoral, or both (see Table 25.1). TCMR is mediated primarily by T cells reacting to donor

TABLE 25.2  Summary of Banff/CCTT Types of Acute T-Cell-Mediated Rejection1,16 Suspicious/ borderline2 Type I3 Type II Type III

Tubulitis + infiltrate Tubulitis (t1, t2, or t3) with minor interstitial infiltrate (i0 or i1) or infiltrate (i2, i3) with mild tubulitis (t1) Tubulitis >4 cells/tubule + infiltrate >25% A: with 5–10 cells/tubule (t2), or B: with >10 cells/tubule (t3) Mononuclear cells under arterial endothelium A: <25% luminal area, or B: ≥25% luminal area Transmural arterial inflammation, or fibrinoid ­arterial necrosis with accompanying lymphocytic inflammation4

histocompatibility antigens in the kidney and is much more common than acute humoral rejection, due to donorspecific antibodies (i.e., acute antibody-mediated rejection), although the latter is now recognized with greater frequency and has a worse prognosis. Only since 1999 has the distinction between the two been clearly made in the literature.

ACUTE T-CELL-MEDIATED REJECTION T cells react to donor histocompatibility antigens expressed in the tubules, interstitium, vessels, and glomeruli, separately or in combination (Table 25.2). The donor ureter is also affected but rarely sampled.52

Tubulointerstitial Rejection (Type I) The prominent microscopic feature of TCMR is a pleomorphic interstitial infiltrate of mononuclear cells, accompanied by interstitial edema and sometimes hemorrhage (Fig. 25.1). The infiltrate is typically patchy, both in the cortex and medulla. The infiltrating cells are primarily T cells and macrophages. Activated T cells (lymphoblasts) with increased basophilic cytoplasm, nucleoli, and occasional mitotic figures indicate increased synthetic and proliferative activity.53 Granulocytes are not uncommonly present but rarely prominent. When neutrophils are conspicuous, the possibility of AMR or pyelonephritis should be considered. Eosinophils are present in about 30% of biopsies with rejection and can be abundant, but are rarely more than 2% to 3% of the infiltrate.54,55 Abundant eosinophils (10% of infiltrate) are associated with endarteritis (Banff type II).56 Mast cells increase, as judged by tryptase content, and correlate with edema.57 Acute rejection with abundant plasma cells has been described as early as the first month associated with poor graft survival.58–60 Infiltrating T cells express cytotoxic molecules, namely perforin,61,62 FasL,62,63 granzyme A and B,62,64–66 and TIA-1/GMP-17,66,67 and tumor necrosis factor-β (lymphotoxin).68 Apoptosis of the infiltrating T cells can be demonstrated with the TdT-uridine-nick end label (TUNEL) technique, probably as a result of activation-induced cell death, and would thereby serve to limit the immune reaction.67 Mononuclear cells invade tubules and insinuate between tubular epithelial cells, a process termed “tubulitis” (see Fig. 25.1 inset), which is best appreciated in sections stained with PAS or a silver stain to delineate the tubular basement membrane (TBM). All cortical tubules (proximal and distal) as well as the medullary tubules and the collecting ducts may be affected. Tubular cell apoptosis occurs,67,69–71 which

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation




Fig. 25.1  Acute cellular rejection type I. (A) Mononuclear cells, composed of activated lymphocytes and macrophages, infiltrate the edematous interstitium and invade tubules. Tubulitis affects proximal and other tubules, where mononuclear cells are interposed between the tubular epithelial cells (inset). The invading mononuclear cells appear dark with scant cytoplasm, which distinguishes them from tubular epithelial cells. The tubular basement membranes are stained red by the periodic acid-Schiff stain, which is useful to delineate the boundary between the tubule and the interstitium.

correlates with the number of cytotoxic cells and macrophages in the infiltrate.67,70 Tubular epithelial cells express human leukocyte antigen–DR (HLA-DR), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM 1), and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) in increased amounts in TCMR72–82 and express the costimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86.83 Tubules also synthesize tumor necrosis factor-α,84 transforming growth factor-β1, IL-15, osteopontin, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).85–87 Increased expression of S100A4 may signal the process of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT),88 which may actually consist of an in situ epithelial response rather than a true emigration of tubular epithelial cells into the interstitium.89 Thus, as suggested by proceedings at a Banff conference on allograft pathology,17 EMT may be better thought of as an epithelial to mesenchymal phenotype (EMP).90 Some tubular cell-derived molecules have the potential to inhibit acute rejection, such as protease inhibitor-9 (PI-9), the only known inhibitor of granzyme B65 and IL-15, which inhibits expression of perforin.85 CD8+ and CD4+ cells invade tubules.91 Intratubular T cells with cytotoxic granules,67 and CD4+FOXP3+ cells92 accumulate selectively in the tubules, compared with the interstitial infiltrate. T cells proliferate once inside the tubule, as judged by the marker Ki67 (MIB-1), which contributes to their concentration within tubules, in addition to selective invasion.67,93 Increased tubular HLA-DR,72,73 tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α,84 IFNγ receptor,68 IL-2 receptor,94 and IL-8 are detectable by immunoperoxidase study in TCMR. Several adhesion molecules are increased on tubular cells during rejection, including ICAM-1 (CD54) and VCAM-1, and correlate with the degree of T cell infiltration.82 Signs of tubular cell injury can be detected by TUNEL apoptosis assay. Increased numbers of TUNEL+ tubular cells are present in acute rejection, compared with normal kidneys.67,69 The frequency was significantly lower in cyclosporin A (CsA) toxicity or ATN.67 The degree of apoptosis correlates with the cytotoxic cells in the infiltrate, consistent with a pathogenetic relationship.67 Prominent apoptosis of the infiltrating T cells has also been detected at a frequency

comparable to that in the normal thymus (1.8% of cells).67 Others have described occasional TUNEL+ lymphocytes.69 Apoptosis probably occurs in infiltrating T cells as a result of activation-induced cell death and would thereby serve to limit the immune reaction.67 Little, if any, immunoglobulin deposition is found by immunofluorescence in TCMR, which is characterized primarily by extravascular fibrin accumulation in the interstitium and not uncommonly increased C3 along the TBM. The C3 is largely derived from tubular cells.95 C3 may have a role in the pathogenesis of acute rejection, because C3-deficient mouse kidneys have prolonged survival.96 C4d deposition in PTCs indicates an antibody-mediated component. Gene expression studies of graft tissue have revealed that transcripts for proteins of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), such as granzyme B, perforin, and Fas ligand97–103 and the master transcription factor for CTLs, T-bet, are characteristic of TCMR.101 Graft CTL-associated transcripts (CATs) precede tubulitis in mouse kidney grafts.104 Treatment of rejection is followed by a measurable decrease of CATs.100 However, knockout of either granzyme or perforin does not prevent acute rejection, suggesting they are not essential.105 IFNγ mRNA is detectable in fine needle aspirates 1 week before the clinical onset of rejection.106 Other genes associated with acute rejection are IFNγ, TNFβ, TNFα, RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted, also known as also Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 5 [CCL5]), and macrophage inflammatory protein 1-alpha (MIP-1-alpha, also known as Chemokine [C-C motif] ligand 3 [CCL3]); no elevation of TGFβ or IL-10 is detected.101 

Endarteritis (Type II Rejection) Infiltration of mononuclear cells under arterial and arteriolar endothelium is the pathognomic lesion of TCMR (Fig. 25.2). Many terms have been used for this process, including “endothelialitis,” “endothelitis,” “endovasculitis,” “intimal arteritis,” or “endarteritis.” We prefer the last term, which emphasizes the type of vessel (artery vs. vein) involved and the site of inflammation. Mononuclear cells


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice



Fig. 25.2  Acute cellular rejection type II. (A) Endarteritis in a medium sized artery. The endothelium is lifted by undermining mononuclear cells, without involvement of the media. (B) Subendothelial infiltration in a small artery with underlying arteriosclerosis (donor disease). This acute process should be distinguished from chronic transplant arteriopathy.

that are sometimes attached to the endothelial surface are insufficient for the diagnosis of endarteritis; however, they probably represent the early phase of this lesion. Endarteritis in TCMR must not be confused with fibrinoid necrosis of arteries. The latter is characteristic of acute AMR and can also be seen in thrombotic vasculopathy. Regrettably, some still do not separate these lesions, regarding all “vascular rejection” as predominately humoral. Endarteritis has been reported in 35% to 56% of renal biopsies with TCMR.11,55,107–109 Many do not find the lesion as often, which may possibly be ascribed to inadequate sampling, overdiagnosis of rejection (increasing the denominator), patient population with respect to medication adherence (severity of rejection), or the timing of the biopsy with respect to antirejection therapy. Endarteritis lesions affect arteries of all sizes including the arteriole, although the lesions affect larger vessels preferentially. For example, in a detailed analysis, 27% of the artery cross sections were affected, vs. 13% of the arterioles.55 A sample of four arteries would have an estimated sensitivity of about 75% in the detection of type II rejection.55 Thus a sample may not be considered adequate to rule out endarteritis unless several arteries are included. “Arteriolitis” has the same significance as endarteritis.110 Endarteritis can occur in cases with little or no interstitial infiltrate or tubulitis, arguing that it has a distinct pathogenetic mechanism,16,111 and even in cases with “isolated endarteritis,” that finding is an independent risk factor for kidney transplant failure.111 In severe cases, a transmural mononuclear infiltrate affects the media, with focal necrosis of the myocytes, features that constitute type III rejection (transmural inflammation or fibrinoid necrosis). Although this occasionally occurs in the absence of demonstrable antibodies, it is more typical of AMR. Endothelial cells are typically reactive with increased cytoplasmic volume and basophilia. The endothelium shows disruption and lifting from supporting stroma by infiltrating inflammatory cells.112 Occasionally endothelial cells are necrotic or absent, however, thrombosis is rare. Endothelial apoptosis occurs67,69 and increased numbers of endothelial cells appear in the circulation.113 The media usually shows

little change. In severe cases a transmural mononuclear infiltrate may be seen (termed “type III rejection”). The cells infiltrating the endothelium and intima are T cells and monocytes, but not B cells.112 Both CD8+ and CD4+ cells invade the intima in early grafts, but later CD8+ cells predominate,91 suggesting that class I antigens are the primary target.67 Vascular endothelial cell apoptosis can be detected in sites of endarteritis.67,69 Normal arterial endothelial cells express class I antigens, weak ICAM-1, and little or no class II antigens, or VCAM-1. During acute rejection the endothelium of arteries expresses increased HLA-DR74,91 and ICAM-1 and VCAM-1.79,81 This adhesion molecule upregulation occurs in association with CD3+82 and CD25+80 infiltrating mononuclear cells. Endothelial cells also have decreased endothelin expression in rejection with endarteritis, but not in tubulointerstitial rejection.114 

Glomerular Lesions In most TCMR cases, glomeruli are spared or show minor changes, typically a few scattered mononuclear cells (T cells and monocytes) and occasionally segmental endothelial damage (Fig. 25.3).115 A severe form of this glomerular injury, termed “transplant glomerulitis” or “acute allograft glomerulopathy,” develops in a minority of cases (<5%), manifested by hypercellularity, injury, and enlargement of endothelial cells; infiltration of glomeruli by mononuclear cells; and by webs of PAS-positive material.116 Crescents and thrombi are rare. Endarteritis often accompanies the transplant glomerulitis.117 The glomeruli contain numerous CD3+ and CD8+ T cells and monocytes.91,118 Fibrin and scant immunoglobulin and complement deposits are found in glomeruli. This variant of cellular rejection has been associated with certain viral infections, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and hepatitis C virus,119 although viral antigens are not in the glomerular lesions.  Atypical Rejection Syndromes Unique patterns of rejection have been observed under novel immunosuppression regimens. For example, following pronounced lymphocyte depletion from alemtuzumab

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation






Fig. 25.3  Acute humoral rejection. (A) Low power shows mild interstitial inflammation, focal hemorrhage, neutrophils and thrombi in glomerular capillaries, and dilated peritubular capillaries with leukocytes. (B) At high power neutrophils can be seen in the peritubular capillaries with little tubulitis. PAS stain. (C) Acute transplant glomerulitis is prominent in this case of acute humoral rejection. Glomerular endothelial cells are swollen and the capillaries are filled with mononuclear cells, probably mostly macrophages. PAS stain. (D) C4d stain of a case of acute humoral rejection, shows prominent, diffuse staining of dilated peritubular capillaries, sometimes containing inflammatory cells, and linear staining along the glomerular basement membrane. Immunohistochemistry with a polyclonal anti-C4d rabbit antibody.

(CAMPATH-1H),53,120,121 TCMR with a prominent monocyte population (i.e., an acute monocytic rejection) has been described. In these cases, much of the interstitial rejection infiltrate stains for CD68, correlating with renal dysfunction and tubular stress, shown by HLA-DR staining of the tubules. Under these conditions, T cells did not correlate with renal dysfunction or HLA-DR staining.120 Studies have included simultaneous bone marrow and kidney transplantation protocols in attempt to induce tolerance to the transplanted organ. In these studies, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched renal transplants have been performed; withdrawal of maintenance immunosuppression has been accomplished in some of the patients with relatively preserved renal function.122 In several of these patients, a capillary leak or engraftment syndrome has been observed around 10 days after a simultaneous kidney/bone marrow transplant preceded by a nonmyeloablative conditioning regimen. In this “engraftment syndrome,” acute tubular injury is accompanied by congested PTCs containing mononuclear cells and red blood cells. IHC shows that the cells are primarily CD68+MPO+ mononuclear cells and CD3+CD8+ T cells, the latter with a high proliferation index (Ki67+). XY chromosome fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) has been used to demonstrate that the PTC cells are recipient derived, correlating with chimerism studies showing a simultaneous decline in circulating donor cells and recovery of recipient circulating cells. PTC endothelial injury can also be seen on EM in these cases.122,123 The etiology of the syndrome remains undefined, and others have performed combined kidney and bone marrow transplants without observing this phenomenon.124 With

modifications in the combined kidney and bone marrow transplantation protocol, it is possible that the “engraftment syndrome” can be eliminated or at least attenuated; this suggests that “engraftment syndrome” may not be an accurate term for what may actually just be a form of transient acute kidney injury.125 

Differential Diagnosis TCMR typically has a diffuse, interstitial mononuclear cell infiltrate, whereas patients with CNI toxicity (CNIT) and those with stable function have only focal mononuclear cell infiltrates (Table 25.3). Endarteritis or C4d+ is found extremely rarely, if ever, in CNIT and if either is present, is the most discriminating feature for acute rejection.126–128 Prominent tubulitis favors acute rejection, because it is less prominent in acute tubular necrosis, particularly in the proximal tubules.129 However, tubulitis has been documented in renal transplants with dysfunction due to lymphoceles (obstruction) and in urine leaks, possibilities that need to be considered and excluded by other techniques.130 Acute obstruction typically has some dilation of the collecting tubules, especially in the outer cortex. Edema and a mild mononuclear infiltrate are also common.11,129,130 Interstitial mononuclear inflammation and tubulitis occur in a variety of diseases other than acute rejection, such as drug-induced (allergic) or infectious tubulointerstitial nephritis. When eosinophils are more abundant than usual for rejection and eosinophils invading tubules are identified, then drug allergy may be favored over rejection. The presence of endarteritis permits a definitive diagnosis of active rejection.55 Lymphocytes commonly


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

TABLE 25.3  Banff Classification (Updated 2017)135,157 (A) CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES CATEGORY 1: NONSPECIFIC CHANGES OR NORMAL BIOPSY CATEGORY 2: ANTIBODY-MEDIATED CHANGES Acute/active ABMR If all three features are present, they are considered diagnostic. If 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 below are present, a “suspicious” designation can be made.a 1. Histologic evidence of injury: □ Microvascular inflammation (g >0 in the absence of recurrent or de novo glomerulonephritis, and/or ptc >0) □ Intimal or transmural arteritis (v >0)1 □ Acute thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) in the absence of other causes □ Acute tubular injury in the absence of other causes 2. Evidence of antibody interaction with vascular endothelium: □ Linear C4d staining in peritubular capillariesb □ ≥ moderate microvascular inflammation ([g + ptc] ≥ 2)c □ Increased gene transcript/classifier expressiond 3. Serologic evidence of DSAs (HLA or other antigens)e: Chronic active ABMR If all three features are present, they are considered diagnostic. If 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 below are present, a “suspicious” designation can be made.a 1. Histologic evidence of injury: □ TG (cg >0), if not evidence of chronic TMA [even if by EM only (cg1a)] □ Severe peritubular capillary basement membrane multilayering2 □ Arterial intimal fibrosis of new onset, excluding other causes 2. Evidence of antibody interaction with vascular endothelium: □ Linear C4d staining in peritubular capillariesb □ ≥ moderate microvascular inflammation ([g + ptc] ≥ 2)c □ Increased gene transcript/classifier expressiond 3. Serologic evidence of DSAs (HLA or other antigens)e C4d staining without eviOnly if three features are present: dence of rejection 1. Linear peritubular capillary C4d stainingb 2. Criterion 1 for active or chronic, active ABMR not met 3. No molecular evidence for ABMR (i.e., in criterion 2 for active and chronic, active ABMR 4. No acute or chronic active acute TCMR, or borderline changes CATEGORY 3: BORDERLINE CHANGES SUSPICIOUS FOR ACUTE TCMR □ Foci of tubulitis (t1, t2, or t3), with minor interstitial inflammation (i0 or i1) or interstitial inflammation (i2, i3) with mild (t1) tubulitis; if designated in a report or publication, retaining the i1 threshold from Banff 2005 is permitted □ No intimal arteritis (v = 0) CATEGORY 4: TCMR Acute TCMR (grade/type)

Chronic active TCMR (grade)

Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA, grade)

A. Interstitial inflammation (>25% of nonsclerotic cortical parenchyma, i2 or i3) and foci of moderate tubulitis (t2) 1 1B. Interstitial inflammation (>25% of nonsclerotic cortical parenchyma, i2 or i3) and foci of severe tubulitis (t3) 2A. Mild to moderate intimal arteritis (v1) with or without interstitial inflammation and tubulitis 2B. Severe intimal arteritis comprising >25% of the luminal area (v2) with or without interstitial inflammation and tubulitis 3. Transmural arteritis and/or arterial fibrinoid change and necrosis of the medial smooth muscle cells with accompanying lymphocytic inflammation (v3) 1A. Interstitial inflammation [>25% of total cortex (ti score 2 or 3) and >25% of sclerotic cortical parenchyma (i-IFTA score 2 or 3)] with moderate tubulitis (t2) involving ≥1 tubules, not including severely atrophic tubules3 1B. Interstitial inflammation [>25% of total cortex (ti score 2 or 3) and >25% of the sclerotic parenchyma (i-IFTA score 2 or 3)] with severe tubulitis (t3) involving ≥1 tubules, not including severely atrophic tubules3 2. Chronic allograft arteriopathy (arterial neointima, intimal fibrosis with mononuclear cell infiltration)1 I. Mild IFTA (≤25% of cortical area) II. Moderate IFTA (26%–50% of cortical area) III. Severe IFTA (>50% of cortical area)


if C4d positive or C4d negative. or C4d3 by immunofluorescence on frozen sections or C4d0 >0 by immunohistochemistry on paraffin sections. cAt least moderate (≥ moderate ) microvascular inflammation ([g + ptc] ≥2) can be sufficient for this requirement; however, in the presence of acute TCMR, borderline infiltrate, or infection, ptc ≥2 alone is not sufficient, and g must be ≥1. dIncreased gene transcript/classifier expression is considered sufficient for this requirement “if thoroughly validated” in biopsy tissue. eDSAs can be substituted by C4d staining or expression of validated transcripts/classifiers in criteria 2; however, extensive DSA testing (including non-HLA antibodies if HLA antibody testing is negative) is still advised if criteria 1 and 2 are not met. ABMR, antibody-mediated rejection; DSA, donor-specific antibody; EM, electron microscopy; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IFTA, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy; TCMR, T-cell-mediated rejection; TG, transplant glomerulopathy. 1These arterial lesions may be indicative of ABMR, TCMR, or mixed ABMR/TCMR. 2≥ seven layers in one cortical peritubular capillary and five or more in two additional capillaries, avoiding portions cut tangentially. 3Severely atrophic tubules have three features: (1) diameter <25% of unaffected or minimally affected tubules; (2) undifferentiated-appearing, flattened, or cuboidal epithelium; and (3) pronounced wrinkling and/or thickening of the tubular basement membrane. Other known causes of i-IFTA should be excluded. bC4d2

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation


TABLE 25.3  Banff Classification (Updated 2017)135,157—cont’d (B) QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA Quantitative Criteria (Lesion)





i (interstitial Inflammation) ti (total interstitial inflammation) i-IFTA (inflammation in interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy) t (tubulitis) V (arteritis)

i0: none or trivial (<10% of i1: 10%–25% of unscarred i2: 26%–50% of unscarred unscarred cortex) cortex inflamed cortex inflamed ti0: none or trivial (<10% ti1: 10%–25% of scarred and ti2: 26%–50% of scarred and of cortex) unscarred cortex unscarred cortex

i3: >50% of unscarred cortex inflamed ti3: >50% of scarred and unscarred cortex

i-IFTA0: no inflammation or <10% of scarred cortical parenchyma

i-IFTA1: inflammation in i-IFTA2: inflammation in 10%–25% of scarred corti26%–50% of scarred cal parenchyma cortical parenchyma

i-IFTA3: inflammation in >50% of scarred cortical parenchyma

t0: no tubular mononuclear cells v0: no arteritis

t1: 1–4 cells/tubular cross t2: 5–10 cells/tubular cross section1 section1 v1: mild to moderate v2: severe arteritis with ≥25% arteritis in ≥1 arterial cross luminal area lost in ≥1 artesection rial cross section

g (glomerulitis)3 ptc4 (peritubular capillaritis) ci (interstitial fibrosis) ct (tubular atrophy) cg (transplant glomerulopathy) mm (mesangial matrix increase) cv (arterial fibrous intimal thickening)6 ah (arteriolar hyalinosis) aah (arteriolar hyaline thickening)7 C4d IF by immunofluorescence

g0: none

g1: <25% of glomeruli

ptc0: Absent or < 10% of cortical PTCs ci0: ≤5% of cortical area

ptc1: 3–4 luminal inflammatory cells3 ci1: 6%–25% of cortical area

> 10 cells/tubular cross section2 v3: transmural arteritis and/ or fibrinoid change and medial smooth muscle necrosis with vascular lymphocytic infiltrate g3: mostly global in >75% of glomeruli ptc3: >10 luminal inflammatory cells ci3: >50% of cortical area

ct0: none

ct1: ≤ tubular atrophy

cg0: no GBM double contours

cg1: GBM double contours in ≤25% of capillary loops5

ct2: 26%–50% tubular ct3: >50% tubular atrophy atrophy cg2: Double contours in cg3: Double contours in 26%–50% of capillary loops >50% of capillary loops

mm0: none

mm1: ≤25% of nonsclerotic glomeruli

mm2: 26%–50% of nonsclerotic glomeruli

C4d IHC by immunohistochemistry

C4d0: 0% of biopsy area, considered negative

g2: segmental or global in 25%–75% of glomeruli ptc2: 5–10 luminal inflammatory cells3 ci2: 26%–50% of cortical area

mm3: 50% of nonsclerotic glomeruli

cv0: arterial fibrous intimal thickening

cv1: arterial fibrous intimal cv2: arterial fibrous intimal cv3: arterial fibrous intimal thickening with 1%–25% thickening with 26%–50% thickening with >50% luminal narrowing luminal narrowing luminal narrowing ah0: none ah1: mild-moderate in ≤1 ah2: moderate to severe in >1 ah3: Severe in many arteriarteriole arteriole oles aah0: no lesions typical of aah1: 1 arteriole, not circum- aah2: >1 arteriole, not circum- aah3: Any number of arteriCNI arteriolopathy ferential ferential oles, circumferential C4d0: 0% of biopsy area, considered negative

C4d1: 1 to <10% of biopsy C4d2: 10%–50% of biopsy C4d3: >50% of biopsy area, area, considered minimal/ area, considered focal considered diffuse positive negative unknown C4d1: 1% to <10% of biopsy C4d2: 10%–50% of biopsy area, C4d3: >50% of biopsy area, area, considered minimal/ considered focal positive considered diffuse positive unknown


can be considered per tubular cross section or per 10 tubular cells. can also be diagnosed if or ≥ two areas of tubular basement membrane destruction accompanied by i2/i3 inflammation and t2 tubulitis elsewhere in the biopsy. 3Complete or partial occlusion of ≥1 glomerular capillary by leukocyte infiltration and endothelial cell enlargement. 4Comment on extent (focal ≤ 50%; diffuse >50%) and composition (neutrophils and mononuclear cells). 5In the severely affected glomerulus; also note number and percent sclerotic. Furthermore, cg1a denotes no GBM double contours by light microscopy but GBM double contours by electron microcopy (EM) with endothelial swelling and/or subendothelial electron lucent widening, and cg1b can denote ≥1 double contours in ≥1 non-sclerotic glomerulus, confirmed by EM if available. 6Characterized by features of chronic rejection (fibrointimal thickening/neointima formation ± breach of internal elastic lamina or presence of occasional mononuclear or foam cells, ± breaks in elastic lamina). 7Alternate scoring for hyaline arteriolar thickening (not always used diagnostically) due to calcineurin inhibitors (CNI). Adapted from Farris AB. Histopathological syndromes of kidney allograft rejection and recurrent disease. In: Kirk A, Larsen C, Madsen J, Pearson T, Webber S, editors. Textbook of Organ Transplantation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2014. Loupy A, Haas M, Solez K, et al. The Banff 2015 kidney meeting report: current challenges in rejection classification and prospects for adopting molecular pathology. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(1):28–41. 2t3

surround vessels (without medial involvement), a nonspecific feature, and must not be confused with endarteritis. Tubulitis is often present in atrophic tubules and does not indicate acute rejection. The diagnosis of acute pyelonephritis should be raised when active inflammation and abundant intratubular neutrophils are present. A note of caution though because in acute AMR, neutrophilic tubulitis with neutrophil casts can be seen; a C4d stain will help in distinguishing between these. A

positive urine culture will also separate infection from rejection.131 Polyoma virus interstitial nephritis (BK virus) is often diagnosed by the presence of the enlarged, hyperchromatic tubular nuclei with lavender viral nuclear inclusions, often in collecting ducts. However, these may be inconspicuous, and diligent study of multiple sections may be required. Other clues are prominent apoptosis of tubular cells and abundant plasma cells, which invade


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

tubules. IHC for the polyoma SV40 large T antigen or in situ hybridization for BK polyomavirus and EM (even of paraffin) will confirm the diagnosis. Sometimes BK virus infection, with its exuberant plasmacytic infiltration and activated immunoblasts may be confused with the plasmacytic hyperplasia form of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease,131 which also should be considered in the differential diagnosis of acute cellular rejection. Rarer infections, including microsporidia, should also be considered in biopsies with interstitial inflammation.132–134 

ACUTE ANTIBODY-MEDIATED REJECTION Acute antibody-mediated rejection (also known as acute humoral rejection, acute AMR, or, as referred to in the latest Banff criteria: “active” AMR135) is a form of renal allograft rejection due to damage by circulating antibodies that react to donor alloantigens on endothelium. These antigens include HLA class I and class II antigens,14,136,137 ABO blood group antigens,138 and other non-major histocompatibility complex (MHC) antigens,108,139 even in HLA-identical grafts.140 The main risk factors for donorspecific antibody (DSA; this term typically refers to antiHLA antibody) are blood transfusion, pregnancy, and prior transplant.141 DSA may arise de novo in the posttransplant period, or alloantibody may be present before transplantation in the case of positive crossmatch (+XM) or ABO blood group incompatible transplants with preconditioning regimens to lower the alloantibody level before transplantation. Hyperacute rejection is an immediate rejection that occurs with high levels of preformed alloantibody directed against the graft. Traditionally, identification of acute AMR in biopsies is difficult because none of the histologic features is diagnostic, and immunoglobulin deposition was usually not detectable in the graft.142–144 Techniques for demonstrating C4d in PTCs, pioneered by Feucht,145 have substantially improved detection of this condition.14,144,146–148 Acute AMR may occur in the absence of evidence for T-cell-mediated injury, particularly in +XM transplants;149–151 however, it is not uncommon for both to be present, particularly in the later posttransplant period (months to years).14 Acute AMR typically presents with clinically severe acute rejection136 1 to 3 weeks after transplantation, but also can arise months to years later, associated with decreased immunosuppression or noncompliance.152 With current therapy, approximately 5% to 7% of recipients develop an episode of acute AMR, and about 25% of biopsies taken for acute rejection have pathologic evidence of an acute AMR component.16 The main risk factor is presensitization by blood transfusion, pregnancy, or prior transplant,141 however, the majority have a negative crossmatch at the time of transplantation.131 Serologic testing for DSA has become more sensitive in the past decade due to the widespread use of solid-phase assays rather than the older cell-based assays.153,154 These assays can be used before transplantation and for posttransplant monitoring for DSA. These more sensitive methods of detecting DSA have brought to light the spectrum of alloantibody-mediated damage (e.g., capillaritis) that may not have been recognized in previous studies.155,156

Diagnostic Criteria The three diagnostic criteria for acute AMR are (1) histologic evidence of acute injury (neutrophils in capillaries, acute tubular injury, fibrinoid necrosis), (2) evidence of antibody interaction with tissue (typically C4d in PTCs), and (3) serologic evidence of circulating antibodies to antigens expressed by donor endothelium (typically HLA).147,148,157 Criteria for the diagnosis of acute AMR have been refined over the years. Generally speaking, if only two of the three major criteria are established (e.g., when antibody is negative or not done), the diagnosis can be considered suspicious for acute AMR. Biopsies meeting criteria for both acute AMR and TCMR type I or II are considered to have both forms of rejection. Biopsies with C4d and no pathology are likely a manifestation of “accommodation” (see later).131  Pathologic Features Histologic findings are typically scant to moderate mononuclear interstitial infiltrates, sometimes with prominent neutrophils115,147,158,159 and increased numbers of macrophages160 (see Fig. 25.3). The extent of mononuclear infiltration often does not meet the criteria for TCMR.159 PTCs have neutrophils in about 50% of cases and are classically dilated (Fig. 25.4A). Interstitial edema and hemorrhage can be prominent. Glomeruli have accumulations of macrophages (∼50% of cases) and neutrophils (∼25% of cases; see Fig. 25.3)115,147,159,161 and occasionally fibrin thrombi or segmental necrosis.115,136,147 Acute tubular injury, sometimes severe, can be identified in many cases and may be the only initial manifestation of acute AMR. Focal necrosis of whole tubular cross sections, similar to cortical necrosis has been reported; 38% to 70% of acute AMR cases may have patchy infarction.115,162 Little mononuclear cell tubulitis is found, although a neutrophilic tubulitis with or without neutrophil casts may be prominent,115 resembling acute pyelonephritis. Plasma cells can be abundant in acute AMR, either early59 or late163,164 after transplantation, sometimes associated with severe edema and increased IFNγ production in the graft.164 B cells can be also present, but have no apparent diagnostic value.131 In about 15% of cases small arteries shows fibrinoid necrosis, with little mononuclear infiltrate in the intima or adventitia but with neutrophils and karyorrhectic debris (Fig. 25.5).115,162 Arterial thrombosis can be found in 10%, and a pattern resembling TMA has also been reported.162 Around 75% of cases with fibrinoid necrosis are C4d positive.115,147,158,161 Presumably the C4d-negative cases had T-cell-mediated rejection or TMA. Antibodies to the angiotensin II type 1 receptor have been detected in a few cases with arterial fibrinoid necrosis, in the absence of capillary C4d deposition.165 The presence of mononuclear endarteritis in cases of acute AMR strongly suggests a component of T-cell-mediated rejection.115 By EM the PTCs are dilated, containing neutrophils. The endothelium is reactive and shows loss of fenestrations. The glomerular endothelium is separated from the GBM by a widened lucent space with endothelial cell swelling115 and loss of endothelial fenestrations, indicative of injury. Platelets, fibrin, and neutrophils are found in glomerular and PTCs. The small arteries with fibrinoid necrosis show marked endothelial injury and loss, smooth muscle necrosis, and deposition of fibrin.131 

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation




∗ E



E Fig. 25.4  Chronic allograft glomerulopathy. (A) widespread duplication of the GBM with mild mesangial hypercellularity and increased mononuclear cells in the glomerular capillaries. PAS stain. Inset shows GBM multilamination at high power in a silver stain. (B) EM, high power of a glomerular capillary showing duplication of the GBM; the new or second layer of GBM (short arrow) forms underneath the endothelium (E) and is separated from the old GBM layer (long arrow) by the cellular (mononuclear or mesangial cell) interposition (*). C, capillary lumen; U, urinary space. (C) Immunohistochemistry stain for C4d in paraffin sections shows prominent C4d deposition in glomerular and peritubular capillaries. (D) EM, high magnification of a PTC with multilamination (arrow) of the basement membrane. Inset is a higher magnification of the area marked by arrow. E, endothelium; I, interstitium.

C4d Interpretation Feucht and colleagues first drew attention to C4d as a possible marker of an antibody-mediated component of severe rejection.145 C4d, a fragment of complement component C4, is released during activation of the classical complement pathway by antigen–antibody interaction. Because C4d contains a thioester bond, it binds covalently to tissues at the local site of activation. The covalent linkage explains why C4d remains for several days after alloantibody disappears, because antibody binds to cell surface antigens that can be lost by modulation, shedding, or cell death.

Although immunoglobulin deposition is found in only a minority of cases, C4d is characteristically detected in a widespread, uniform ring-like distribution in the PTCs by immunofluorescence in cryostat sections14,145 (see Fig. 25.4B). Deposition occurs in both the cortex and medulla. Using IHC in formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue, C4d has a similar pattern, although the intensity is variable. “Serum staining” is an artifact of C4d IHC, so PTCs must show clear circumferential staining to be called positive by this technique. Glomerular capillary staining also occurs but is hard to distinguish from C4d normally found in the mesangium in frozen sections stained by


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

Fig. 25.5  Fibrinoid arterial necrosis: an arteriole with destruction of the medial wall smooth muscle cells by fibrinoid necrosis. Some neutrophils are present underneath the reactive and swollen endothelium. This vascular change is distinctly different from endarteritis (compare with Fig. 25.2) and can be seen in both acute humoral rejection and type III acute rejection. This case had positive C4d.

immunofluorescence. Formalin fixation eliminates this background staining and demonstrates glomerular C4d in about 30% of acute AMR cases.159 Grafts with focal C4d (<50% of PTC) are of uncertain significance and the patient should be monitored closely for donor-reactive antibodies. Two of three studies have failed to show any significant clinical or pathologic difference between cases with focal and diffuse C4d staining.161,163,166 C4d deposition can precede histologic evidence of acute AMR by 5 to 34 days.167 C4d in 1-week protocol biopsies was followed by clinical acute rejection in 82% of cases168 and was associated with donor-reactive antibodies.169 In the setting of acute rejection, C4d is a specific (96%) and sensitive (95%) marker of circulating antidonor HLAspecific antibodies by the antihuman globulin cytotoxicity test.170 PTC C4d deposition is associated with concurrent circulating antibodies to donor HLA class I or II antigens in 88% to 95% of recipients with acute rejection.147,171,172 Moreover, C4d deposition and the severity of histologic injury by antibody correlates with the serum DSA level in acute humoral rejection.149 False negative antibody assays may be due to absorption by the graft as shown by elution from rejected grafts in patients who had no detectable circulating antibody,173 or it may be due to differences in detection of antibody directed against different HLA alleles and sensitivity of solid-phase methods for particular alloantigens. Alternatively, non-HLA antigens may be the target.16,174–179 C4d-negative acute rejection may show flow cytometry evidence of antidonor reactive antibodies as frequently as 50%,171 due in part to noncomplement fixing antibodies.180 Cell based assays have a false positive rate of <10%.147 In a comparison of methods for C4d, the triple layer immunofluorescence technique14 proved the most sensitive, although the difference with IHC in paraffin embedded tissue was small.181 With fixed tissue, plasma in the capillaries and interstitium may stain for C4d, which interferes with interpretation.131

Other components of the complement system have been sought. C3d, a degradation product of C3, was found in PTCs in 39% to 60% of biopsies from HLA-mismatched grafts with diffuse C4d.158,168,172,182 C3d was usually172 but not always182 associated with C4d. C3d correlated with acute AMR in all studies, and was associated with increased risk of graft loss in two series, compared with C3d-negative cases, but C3d provided no convincing additional risk compared with C4d+. The interpretation of C3d stains is complicated by the common presence of C3d along the TBM.172 Even though C3d should indicate more complete complement activation, it added no diagnostic value to C4d in grafts showing histologic features of acute AMR, except in the setting of ABO-incompatible grafts.172 Other complement components, such as C1q, C5b9, and C-reactive protein (CRP) are not conspicuous in PTCs in acute rejection.183,184 Lectin pathway components, which activate C4 by binding to microbial carbohydrates, are sometimes detected.168,185 Among 18 biopsies with C4d, 16 had diffuse H-ficolin deposition along the PTCs, whereas none of the 42 cases without C4d had H-ficolin. No Mannan-binding lectin serine protease 1 (MASP-1, also known as mannoseassociated serine protease 1) or MASP-2 was detectable.185 The significance of this observation is not clear, because MASP proteins are required to activate C4 via the ficolins or Mannosebinding lectin (MBL).185 Natural killer (NK) cells have been the focus of recent research in graft injury, particularly regarding AMR.186,187 Microarray analysis has indicated that several DSA-specific gene transcripts show high expression in NK cells, and IHC also shows prominent numbers of peritubular capillary NK cells in these cases.188 Depletion of NK cells with antiNK1.1 significantly reduced DSA-induced chronic allograft vasculopathy in a murine cardiac allograft model.186,189 

C4d Negative Antibody-Mediated Rejection Attention has recently been drawn to “C4d-negative” AMR, and recent Banff allograft classification documents encourage that cases be designated as “C4d positive” or “C4d negative.”157,190 These cases have DSA and varying degrees of morphologic evidence of antibody-mediated injury but lack detectable C4d deposition in PTC endothelium.191–193 Morphologic signs of injury with concurrent DSA positivity have been identified, particularly in sensitized patients early after transplantation.191,194 Negativity for C4d in AMR can be explained by various mechanisms: time-dependent degradation of C4d-deposits in the microcirculation, complement independent antibody-mediated injury, lack of sensitivity and reproducibility of the staining methods, arbitrary criteria for defining “positivity,” and acute tissue injury due to nonrejection causes with incidental chronic alloantibody-associated changes (capillaritis; usually C4d negative).193 Molecular studies have uncovered a subset of cases with morphologic features of antibody-mediated injury and DSA showing increased endothelial cell associated transcript expression, indicative of endothelial cell activation and stress. These data suggest that 50% to 60% of AMR cases are missed by current Banff criteria due to C4d negativity,195 although many of these cases may be chronic alloantibody-mediated endothelial

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

TABLE 25.4  Differentiation Between Acute Rejection and Acute Calcineurin Inhibitor Toxicity Acute Rejection

CNI Toxicity

INTERSTITIUM Infiltrate Edema

Moderate–marked Absent–mild Usual Can be present

TUBULES Tubular injury Vacuoles Tubulitis

Usual Occasional Prominent

ARTERIOLES Endothelialitis Can be present Smooth muscle degeneration Absent Mucoid intimal thickening Absent with red cells

Usual Common Minimal–absent Absent Sometimes present Sometimes present (TMA)

ARTERIES Endothelialitis


Absent (rare mononuclear TMA)


May be positive


GLOMERULI Mononuclear cells Thrombi

Often Occasional

Rare Occasionally prominent (TMA)

CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; TMA, thrombotic microangiopathy.

injury and represent a different mechanism of injury from acute AMR, which is likely more complement mediated.196 Eventually, C4d-negative AMR will likely be added to the Banff diagnostic armamentarium as a distinct category of AMR; however, data are still being gathered by a respective Banff Working Group regarding the significance of this entity in an attempt to provide diagnostic criteria.17

Differential Diagnosis For differential diagnosis, it is helpful that both ATN144,197 and TMA in native kidneys are C4d negative. Among 26 cases of TMA/hemolytic-uremic syndrome in native kidneys, none had positive C4d, including cases with lupus anticoagulant and antiphospholipid antibodies.144 In five cases of recurrent hemolytic-uremic syndrome in transplant recipients, C4d was also negative.198 Among native kidney diseases, only lupus nephritis144,199 and endocarditis199 have been reported to have PTC C4d. Glomerular C4d deposits are not specific because they occur in many forms of immune complex glomerulonephritis in native kidneys. Arterial intimal fibrosis often stains for C4d, even in native kidneys and should not be taken as evidence of AMR.144 The comparative features of “pure” humoral and TCMR are given in Table 25.4. In acute AMR neutrophils are the predominant inflammatory cells in PTCs, glomeruli, tubules, and the interstitium, with or without accompanying fibrinoid necrosis. The vascular lesion of acute AMR, if present, is fibrinoid necrosis of the wall; whereas, in TCMR, endarteritis is the usual lesion. C4d deposition in PTCs (immunofluorescence microscopy) is typically only present in acute AMR but not in TCMR.131 The prognosis of acute AMR is uniformly worse than TCMR.14,108,115,136,139,162 In one series, 75% of the 1-year graft losses from acute rejection were in the C4d+ acute


AMR group.147 However, some of those who recover from the acute episode of acute AMR have a similar long-term outcome,115 suggesting that the pathogenetic humoral response can be transient if treated effectively. 

Accommodation The process termed “accommodation” is a peculiar scenario related to AMR. Accommodation refers to the presence of PTC C4d deposition in the absence of other evidence of antibody-mediated injury and in the presence of normal or stable graft function. Accommodation is thought to represent a process of endothelial cell adaptation to antibody and complement over time. In accommodation, donor-specific antibodies may be detectable; however, morphologic signs of tissue injury are absent. There are no signs of acute or chronic TCMR or AMR; more specifically, there is no ATNlike minimal inflammation, no glomerulitis [g0], no chronic transplant glomerulopathy [cg0], no peritubular capillaritis [ptc0], and no PTC basement membrane multilamination. Current Banff criteria refer to this situation as “C4d deposition without evidence of active rejection.” If there are simultaneous borderline changes, the cases can be considered to be indeterminate.157,190,200 Accommodation is common in the setting of ABO-incompatible allografts, with at least 80% of normal surveillance biopsies showing C4d deposition in PTCs.172 It appears that antibodies against blood group antigens (i.e., ABO-incompatible allografts) are mostly not injurious to allografts with “accommodation”; however, allografts with “accommodation” having anti-HLA antibodies may progress to chronic AMR, given enough follow-up surveillance.157 The long-term significance of these relatively uncommon cases is still under investigation.138,201–203  Complement Inhibition Although most approaches for treatment or prevention of acute AMR involve removing alloantibody from the circulation (by plasmapheresis) or decreasing production of alloantibody (e.g., by antiplasma cell drugs), another technique to prevent graft damage by antibody is by inhibiting complement. Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the terminal complement component C5, is now being applied in renal transplantation, particularly in sensitized (+XM) patients at a high risk for early acute AMR. C5 is downstream of C4d in the complement cascade; thus, with DSA activation of complement, diffuse C4d deposition would be expected even with effective C5 inhibition. Early surveillance biopsies in eculizumab-treated patients showed diffuse C4d deposition but absent morphologic signs of acute AMR, including a lack of endothelial cell activation by EM. The absence of respective pathology suggests endothelial protection by eculizumab, and moreover supports the notion that most cases of early acute AMR are complement mediated. However, acute AMR has been observed despite eculizumab therapy and may be due to IgM DSA not detected by the usual DSA testing methods.204,205 Notably, a subset of patients still developed features of chronic humoral rejection (chronic AMR), including transplant glomerulopathy (TG).196 Although effective in preventing early acute AMR in +XM transplants, it appears that complement inhibition alone does not entirely prevent chronic, antibody-mediated microcirculation injury. Furthermore,


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

the diagnostic reliability for acute AMR of C4d and serum DSA are apparent in this setting, suggesting that diagnostic criteria refinements are needed (See Chapter 22). 

definitions are faulty. Despite these considerations, Banff is fully accepted as a scoring system of drug trials and is used widely in clinical practice (although not necessarily with an individual score report).131 

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS The most widely used system currently is the Banff working schema (Banff). Banff started as an international collaborative effort led by Kim Solez, Lorraine Racusen, and Philip Halloran to achieve a consensus that would be useful for drug trials and routine diagnosis.10,17,206 Banff is still growing and remodeling, undergoing revisions based on data presented, and debated at the biennial Banff meeting. These include restructuring that separated the category of endarteritis, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cooperative Clinical Trials in Transplantation (CCTT) criteria,11,207 the addition of acute148 and chronic AMR,208 and the birth10 and death208 of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN).209 Banff scores three elements to assess acute rejection: tubulitis (t), the extent of cortical mononuclear infiltrate (i), and vascular inflammation (intimal arteritis or transmural inflammation) (v). Mononuclear cell glomerulitis (g) is scored but not yet part of the classification of rejection. Banff recognizes three major categories of acute T-cellmediated rejection (tubulointerstitial, endarteritis, and arterial fibrinoid necrosis; see Table 25.2). The threshold for type I (tubulointerstitial) TCMR is >25% cortical mononuclear inflammation in the nonatrophic areas, provided tubulitis of at least 5 to 10 cells/tubule is present.207 Cases with no tubulitis, regardless of the extent of infiltrate, are not considered TCMR. Biopsies with C4d+ PTCs are considered to have an additional component of AMR, which occurs in 20% to 30% of cases.210 Cases with tubulitis are termed “suspicious for rejection” or “borderline” in the current Banff system. Many, but not all, of these cases are early or mild acute rejection: 75% to 88% of patients with suspicious/borderline category and graft dysfunction improve renal function with increased immunosuppression,211,212 comparable to the response rate in type I rejection (86%).211 A minority (28%) of untreated suspicious/borderline cases progress to frank acute rejection in 40 days.213 Almost all with suspicious/borderline findings do well, provided there is no element of concurrent AMR, which commonly has a suspicious/borderline pattern, although care must be taken not to misinterpret peritubular capillaritis as interstitial inflammation.155,159 The suspicious category is not counted as acute rejection in many clinical trials, a major omission in our opinion. The interobserver reproducibility of the present Banff classification is sufficient but needs improvement. In a Canadian study, the agreement rate for rejection was 74%, but there was only 43% agreement on the suspicious/borderline cases,214 similar to a European series.215 Among a group of 21 European pathologists, the agreement rate was poor for all of the acute Banff scores (t, i, v, g) in transplant biopsy slides (all kappa scores <0.4).28 Agreement for t and v scores improved significantly when participants were asked to grade a lesion in a photograph (kappa scores of 0.61 and 0.69, respectively), arguing that the challenge is primarily finding the lesion in the glass slide. Lack of improvement in the other categories (g, i) argues that the

Late Graft Diseases Although acute rejection has diminished in clinical importance in the past decade, allografts are still lost by slow, progressive diseases that cause a 3% to 5% annual attrition rate. The specific causes of this are many and sometimes difficult to ascertain, particularly if only an end-stage kidney is examined. Unfortunately, the two terms “chronic rejection” and “CAN” have been used in past literature to lump together these myriad diseases. The role of the pathologist in interpreting the biopsy is to provide the most specific diagnosis possible and indicate the activity of the process. Although some have argued that the renal biopsy is not useful in analyzing graft dysfunction after 1 year, the data show that in 8% to 39% of patients the biopsy led to a change in management that improved renal function.2,3 Here we will discuss the criteria used to distinguish some of these diseases and those that remain idiopathic. The term “chronic rejection” is best defined as chronic injury primarily mediated by an immune reaction to donor alloantigens.

CHRONIC ANTIBODY-MEDIATED REJECTION Circulating anti-HLA antibodies have been associated with increased risk of late graft loss.216,217 Chronic, active antibody-mediated rejection (chronic humoral rejection, chronic AMR) is now recognized as a separate category in the Banff schema. Chronic AMR differs from acute AMR in the usual lack of evidence of acute inflammation (thrombi, necrosis, mostly neutrophilic capillaritis), and the presence of matrix synthesis (basement membrane multilamination, fibrosis in arterial intima and the interstitium). Chronic AMR commonly arises late (>6 months after transplantation) and may occur in patients with or without a history of acute AMR, although C4d in early biopsies is a risk factor for later TG with C4d.218–221 In the setting of de novo DSA, many patients have reduced levels of immunosuppression (absorption, iatrogenic or noncompliance).222 In these cases, a combination of chronic AMR and acute AMR may be seen, along with a component of T-cell-mediated rejection.151 The criteria of chronic AMR are the triad of: (1) one of the following morphologic features, TG (duplication or “double contours” in glomerular basement membranes), multilamination of the PTC basement membrane, PTC loss and interstitial fibrosis (IF), or chronic arteriopathy with fibrous intimal thickening (without duplication of the internal elastica); (2) diffuse C4d deposition in PTCs; and (3) circulating DSA. If only two elements of the triad are present, the diagnosis is considered “suspicious.” Although helpful when positive, C4d deposition and serum DSA are particularly problematic in the chronic setting. They are less sensitive markers due to serum DSA level variability with time posttransplant. Two features point to ongoing immunologic activity: the presence of C4d and mononuclear cells in glomerular and PTCs. Scoring of multilamination requires

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

EM, not always available in transplant biopsies, and quantitative assessment of the number of layers, because to distinguish from other common causes of lamination, more than approximately six layers have to be present.223,224 To be specific for AMR, current Banff criteria recommend that seven or more layers should be present in one peritubular capillary and five or more layers be present in two additional capillaries,157,190 and this is largely based on one study.224 In assessing peritubular capillary basement membrane multilamination by EM, peritubular capillary basement membranes cut tangentially should be avoided. A Banff Working Group is currently engaged in efforts to refine the assessment of peritubular capillaries and other features by EM.157 Duplication of the GBM has many other causes, such as TMA and MPGN; however, these do not have C4d in PTC unless there is more than one concurrent pathologic process.225 A sequence of four stages of development of chronic AMR has been demonstrated in protocol biopsies of nonhuman primate renal allografts. The process begins with antibody production, followed by C4d deposition, and later, morphologic and functional changes.226 Validation of these processes has recently been provided by gene expression profiling.227 Proof that antibody is sufficient to initiate allograft arterial intimal fibrosis has been shown by passive transfer of anti-MHC antibody into immunologically deficient mice (RAG-1 knockout) bearing cardiac allografts.228

Transplant Glomerulopathy TG (chronic allograft glomerulopathy, given a cg score in the Banff system) increases in frequency from 1 to 5 years posttransplant (5%–14% of protocol biopsies) and affects graft survival more adversely than IF and inflammation.229 TG has been associated with prior episodes of acute rejection, pretransplant hepatitis C antibody positivity, and anti-HLA antibodies (especially anti-class II), with the risk increasing if the antibodies were donor specific.204,220 Patients with preformed DSA (+XM grafts) have a particularly high risk of TG long term, present in 55% of all surviving grafts at 5 years, and in 85% of surviving grafts with anti-HLA class II DSA.204 TG is defined as duplication of the GBM with modest mesangial expansion, in the absence of specific de novo or recurrent glomerular disease. TG is best revealed in PAS or silver stains (see Fig. 25.4A). The glomeruli may show an increase in mesangial cells and matrix with various degrees of scarring and adhesions. In some cases, mesangiolysis or webbing of the mesangium may be prominent as well as segmental or global sclerosis. EM reveals duplication or multilamination of the GBM (see Fig. 25.4B), often accompanied by cellular (mononuclear or mesangial cell) interposition, widening or lucency of the subendothelial space, and a moderate increase in mesangial matrix and cells.230 Glomeruli may show focal and segmental scarring (FSGS), especially in more advanced TG, and some cases with collapsing FSGS lesions have been observed. EM detects 40% more cases of TG than light microscopy.223 The GBM typically has rarefactions, microfibrils, cellular debris but few or no deposits.231–233 Endothelial cells may appear reactive with loss of fenestrae, probably undergoing “dedifferentiation.”232–234 Podocyte foot process effacement ranges from minimal to quite extensive,232 corresponding to the degree of proteinuria. The nonduplicated GBM may become


slightly thickened, attributable to compensatory hypertrophy. With immunohistochemical techniques in paraffin sections, C4d is present along the glomerular capillary walls in about 10% to 30% of cases.218,235 Extensive crescents or diffuse immunoglobulin deposits are unusual and suggest recurrent or de novo glomerulonephritis.236–238 It is now recognized that approximately 30% of TG due to chronic AMR are C4d negative.239 Notably, although most cases of TG are due to chronic AMR, this pattern is also seen in allografts with chronic thrombotic microangiopathy and in patients with hepatitis C infection.225 

Peritubular Capillary and Tubulointerstitial Lesions PTCs may be dilated and prominent, with thick basement membranes, or may altogether disappear, leaving only occasional traces of the original basement membrane behind.240,241 In a subset of patients, PTCs have prominent C4d deposition (see Fig. 25.4C), which is associated with circulating antidonor HLA class I or II reactive antibodies.242 Other allografts with chronic AMR features may show focal or multifocal C4d staining of PTCs by immunofluorescence or IHC or dim C4d staining by immunofluorescence. In studies of protocol biopsies in graft recipients with DSA, recognition of peritubular capillaritis has come to light as a feature of early chronic humoral rejection.156,243 Peritubular capillaritis, with or without C4d deposition, is commonly seen as a subclinical rejection feature in patients with DSA in otherwise stable grafts. Peritubular capillaritis is associated with later development of TG, with a greater risk of TG in patients with C4d deposition,156 likely reflecting a more active chronic humoral rejection process in those grafts. EM reveals splitting and multilayering of the PTC basement membrane (see Fig. 25.4D), first described by Monga.244,245 Each ring probably represents the residue of one previous episode of endothelial injury going from oldest (outer) to most recent (inner). Quantitation is necessary to establish diagnostic specificity. Only in chronic rejection were three or more PTCs found with five to six circumferential layers or one PTC with seven or more circumferential layers.223 PTC lamination correlates with TG,223,245 C4d deposition,218 and loss of PTCs.241 Marked multilamination (five to six layers in three capillaries or more than six in one) was found in 50% of cases with IF that lacked arterial or glomerular changes, and may point to past episodes of rejection as the cause of the fibrosis.245 Interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) is a regular, but nonspecific feature of chronic AMR and does not serve to distinguish rejection from other causes, such as calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) toxicity or previous BK polyomavirus infection. Atrophic tubules typically have thickened, duplicated TBMs and intratubular mononuclear cells and mast cells.246 This should not be confused with the tubulitis of acute rejection. The TBM not uncommonly has deposition of C3 in a broad segmental pattern. This is an exaggeration of similar changes found in normal kidneys and probably represents a residue from prior episodes of tubular injury, or possibly a persistent chronic injury. The interstitium typically has a sparse mononuclear infiltrate, with small lymphocytes, plasma cells, and mast cells.247 Nodular collections of quiescent-appearing lymphoid cells are sometimes found around small arcuate arteries. Abundant plasma cells may be present.248 


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

Transplant Arteriopathy Arterial lesions may be a manifestation of chronic AMR.249 Alloantibodies to graft class I antigens are a specific risk factor for chronic transplant arteriopathy (TA) in human renal allografts.250,251 Typically, TA is recognized by thickening of the arterial intima with mononuclear inflammatory cells (CD3+ T cells or CD68+ monocytes/macrophages) within the thickened intima. In a recent study, patients with preformed DSA showed accelerated arteriosclerosis on serial biopsies.249,252 Although the TA lesions were attributable to DSA on serial biopsies from the same allografts, TA such as that due to chronic AMR may not be distinguishable from the arterial intimal thickening seen in hypertension,249 and other biopsy and serologic features are needed to attribute the lesion to chronic AMR.249,252 Experiments in animals show that TA can be initiated by passive transfer of donorreactive MHC antibodies in recipients with no functional T cells, a complement-independent process mediated by NK cells.218,242 

Fig. 25.6 Chronic allograft arteriopathy: an interlobular artery with prominent intimal fibroplasia. The presence of scattered mononuclear cells in the intima and the lack of duplication of the internal elastica are characteristic of chronic rejection. This biopsy was positive for C4d.

CHRONIC T-CELL-MEDIATED REJECTION This category is not well developed and subject to refinement. Using the chronic AMR model, the current Banff classification defines “chronic active T-cell-mediated rejection” as showing morphologic features of chronicity (arterial intimal fibrosis without elastosis) combined with features indicative of ongoing T cell activity (mononuclear cells in the intima). IF with a mononuclear infiltrate and tubulitis is, in some instances, part of this condition, as surveillance follow-up biopsies after an episode of acute cellular rejection not uncommonly show continued inflammation.253 However, at present the arterial lesions are the most definitive. It is anticipated that molecular gene expression studies will help in the future to document the activity of the infiltrate. Other nonspecific features that are commonly present in association with transplant arteriopathy are loss of PTCs and IFTA.241 Small and large arteries, as early as 1 month after transplantation, can begin to develop severe intimal proliferation and luminal narrowing.249,254,255 The intimal change is most prominent in the larger arteries, but can be seen at all levels, from interlobular arteries to the main renal artery. The intima shows pronounced, concentric fibrous thickening with invasion and proliferation of spindle-shaped myofibroblasts (Fig. 25.6). This vascular change has been termed “chronic transplant arteriopathy” and when combined with an infiltrate of mononuclear cells in the intima, is characteristic of chronic T-cell-mediated rejection (Fig. 25.7). Subendothelial mononuclear cells are one of the most distinctive features, and this suggests that the endothelium itself is a target. T cells (CD4+, CD8+, CD45RO+), macrophages, and dendritic cells infiltrate the intima.256–258 T cells express cytotoxic markers, including perforin259 and GMP-1767 and markers of proliferation (proliferating cell nuclear antigen [PCNA]).258 No B cells (CD20) are detected.258 It is imagined that this is a dampened version of the endarteritis of acute rejection. As noted previously, recent studies have also indicated that chronic vascular lesions can be accelerated by the presence of alloantibody.249,252 The second distinctive feature is the lack of multilamination of the elastica interna (fibroelastosis), best appreciated

in elastin stains. Fibroelastosis, typical of hypertensive, atrophic and aging arterial changes, provides a useful differential diagnostic feature from rejection. Foamy macrophages containing lipid droplets are sometimes seen along the internal elastica and can be found as early as 4 weeks after transplantation. Fibrin is sometimes deposited in a band-like subendothelial location or mural thrombus. Focal myocyte loss from the media occurs, as shown in mouse and rat studies.260 Immunofluorescence often shows IgM, C3, and fibrin (and sometimes IgG) along the endothelium, in the intima, or in the media, as a diffuse blush or focal granular deposits.231,250,261–263 The endothelium expresses increased adhesion molecules, notably ICAM-1 and VCAM-1. Antagonism of ICAM-1 binding/expression inhibits chronic rejection264 and in humans certain ICAM-1 genetic polymorphisms (e.g., exon 4, the Mac-1 binding site) appear to confer higher risk for chronic rejection.265 The endothelium remains of donor origin,266,267 however, some of the spindle-shaped cells that contribute to the intimal thickening are of recipient origin.257,268 The myointimal cells stain prominently for smooth muscle actin, sometimes so strikingly that a “double media” seems to be formed.269 This phenomenon has also been described as the development of a new artery inside and concentric with the old,270 with elastic laminae and a muscular media, separated from the old internal elastic lamina poorly by cellular tissue. By EM, the thickened intima consists of myofibroblasts, collagen fibrils, basement membrane material, and a loose amorphous electron-lucent ground substance.271 The matrix consists of collagen, fibronectin, tenascin, proteoglycans (biglycan and decorin), and acid mucopolysaccarides.272–274 Fibronectin has the extra domain of cellular fibronectin extra domain A (EDA), typical of embryonic or wound healing fibronectin.272 Several growth factors/cytokines have been detected. Plateletderived growth factor (PDGF) A chain protein is primarily in endothelial cells, whereas the B chain is in macrophages and smooth muscle cells.275 Enhanced PDGF B-type receptor protein was found on intimal cells and on smooth muscle cells of the proliferating vessels.276 FGF-1 and its

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation




Fig. 25.7  CNI arteriolopathy. (A) Several arterioles with peripheral nodular hyalinosis, where hyalin deposits replace necrotic/apoptotic smooth muscle cells in the outermost media. (B) EM, an artery that has “beads” of hyalin (*) along the outer media. L, arteriolar lumen; T, tubule. (PAS 800×; EM 2700×.)

receptor are present in the thickened intima.277 TNFα is in the smooth muscle of vessels with chronic rejection, in contrast to normal kidneys.278 The T-cell-mediated arterial lesions can be divided into three stages, which probably differ in mechanism and reversibility.234 The stage I lesion is endarteritis, characteristic of type II TCMR. This lesion lacks matrix formation. This acute stage is believed to be T-cell-mediated endothelial injury. Stage II lesions have intimal matrix production and accumulation of myofibroblasts forming a “neointima.” This stage also contains mononuclear cells (T cells and macrophages), believed to be active in the intimal proliferation and accumulation of matrix. Intermediate stages between stage I and II lesions are sometimes found, with lymphocytes admixed with fibrin and fibromuscular proliferation, and are well documented in a nonhuman primate model of chronic rejection.279 Secondary factors probably become increasingly important as the lesion progresses to stage III, where the intima is fibrous and inflammatory cells are scant. A fourth category resembling natural atherosclerosis with cholesterol clefts and calcification has also been proposed.258 A large body of experimental evidence supports the concept that the arterial lesions are immunologically mediated234: (1) the lesions do not routinely arise in isografts; (2) the target antigens can be either major or minor histocompatibility antigens;260,280,281 (3) the specific initiator is probably T cells followed by antibody (antibody is necessary and sufficient for the fibrous lesion in mice); (4) the target cell is probably the endothelium, but the smooth muscle may also be affected; (5) secondary nonimmunologic mechanisms analogous to those in atherosclerosis are important in the progression of the lesion; and ultimately (6) the process may be independent of specific antidonor immunologic activity. T cells are sufficient to initiate cellular vascular lesions in B cell deficient mice, but these lesions do not readily progress to fibrosis in the absence of antibody.282 Fibrous lesions are also markedly reduced in strain combinations that fail to elicit a humoral antibody response. The best evidence for T cell mechanisms of chronic allograft injury in humans is that subclinical or late clinical cellular rejection is associated with progressive graft fibrosis and dysfunction,283–285 and endarteritis is associated with later transplant arteriopathy.286 As mentioned previously,

TABLE 25.5  Differentiation Between Acute Humoral Rejection and Acute Cellular Rejection Acute Humoral Rejection

Acute Cellular Rejection

Variable Present Neutrophils Positive

Moderate–severe Present Mononuclear cells Negative

Can be present Can be neutrophilic

Usually absent Mononuclear cell

VESSELS Endarteritis Fibrinoid necrosis

Can be present Can be present

Present in type II Present in type III

GLOMERULI Inflammatory cells Fibrinoid material/necrosis

Neutrophils Can be present

Mononuclear cells Typically absent

INTERSTITIUM Infiltrate Edema Peritubular capillaries C4da TUBULES Acute tubular necrosis Tubulitis


staining in peritubular capillaries indicates activation of the classical complement pathway by humoral antibody (monoclonal antibody, immunofluorescence microscopy).

antibodies likely conspire to accelerate the process of allograft arteriopathy/arteriosclerosis.249,252 Recent data indicate that allograft deterioration is accelerated by inflammation in scarred areas as well as unscarred areas287,288 in contrast to some of the past thought, which tended to disregard inflammation in scarred areas. For this reason, recent Banff classification added a new score, i-IFTA, which takes into account inflammation in areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy. Furthermore, a Banff Working Group on T-cell-mediated rejection was formed to consider incorporation of i-IFTA into rejection classification and possible elimination of the “borderline” category; this working group is reevaluating thresholds for inflammation and tubulitis (t) and considering the addition of other findings (e.g., edema) in the diagnosis of rejection.157 Along these lines, as shown in Table 25.5, the most recent Banff meeting has now specified criteria for a diagnosis of chronic active TCMR.135 


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

OTHER SPECIFIC DIAGNOSES The other conditions that can be diagnosed by a renal biopsy that cause slowly progressive graft dysfunction and loss are: calcineurin inhibitor toxicity (CNIT), hypertensive vascular disease, PTN, recurrent disease, de novo glomerular disease, obstruction, and renal artery stenosis.16 Chronic CNIT is most specifically diagnosed by the presence of nodular hyaline replacement of individual smooth muscle cells, which may form distinctive deposits on the outer side of the arteriole, as described by Mihatsch as cyclosporin arteriolopathy. Ordinary hyalinosis due to diabetes, hypertension, or aging typically is subendothelial.289–291 To distinguish intimal fibrosis due to hypertension from that due to chronic rejection, an elastin stain is valuable, because in hypertension, but not necessarily in rejection, the elastica interna is multilayered (“elastosis”), and in chronic rejection the elastica is not duplicated, but may be fractured. A recent study, however, suggested that some lesions of vascular intimal thickening due to alloantibody are indistinguishable from those due to hypertension.249 Foam cells and mononuclear cells in the intima also favor rejection. The features that point to a component of chronic AMR were discussed earlier and include, most specifically, the presence of C4d in PTC and/or glomeruli. Multilamination of the GBM or PTC basement membranes is also typical. In the absence of C4d in PTC other causes of lamination of the GBM must be excluded. Demonstration of polyomavirus by IHC in previous biopsies can point to a causal role in the late graft damage, even when the virus is no longer detectable.131 Obstruction, usually difficult to diagnose by histology, archetypically shows dilated collecting ducts, especially in the outer cortex, lymphatics filled with Tamm-Horsfall protein, occasionally ruptured tubules with granulomas, and sometimes acute tubular injury.131 Patients with obstruction may show a completely normal histologic appearance on allograft biopsy, however. Renal artery stenosis causes TA (or even acute injury) accompanied by relatively little fibrosis or intraparenchymal arteriolar/arterial lesions.131 Recurrent and de novo glomerular diseases are generally identified by their light, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopic criteria in native kidneys.131 

INTERSTITIAL FIBROSIS AND TUBULAR ATROPHY There remain cases with IFTA in which no specific diagnosis can be made. Some of these cases may be the end stage of active processes in which the etiologic agent is no longer appreciable (e.g., late effects of polyomavirus or TMA). Others may represent burned out or inactive rejection. This might be the case for TG or arteriopathy without C4d deposition. Animal studies have shown that limited exposure to anti-MHC antibody can cause longstanding arteriopathy, despite only transient C4d deposition.228 The term “CAN” was created in Banff in 1993 to draw attention to the fact that not all late graft injury was due to rejection, and that, to make the diagnosis of rejection, certain more specific features than IF and TA needed to be

present (notably chronic glomerular or arterial lesions). However, the unintended consequence was that “CAN” itself became a diagnosis that inhibited search for specific and perhaps treatable causes. CAN was replaced in Banff 2005 with category 5: “IF and TA, no evidence of any specific etiology.” This now includes only those cases for which no specific etiologic features can be defined, and excludes those with pathologic features of chronic AMR, chronic CNIT, hypertensive renal disease, PTN, obstruction, or other de novo or recurrent renal disease.209 

Protocol Biopsies “Protocol” or “surveillance” biopsies taken at predetermined times for evaluation of the status of the renal allograft, independent of renal function, are currently the standard of care at several leading transplant centers229,283,284,292–295 and widely used in clinical trials to evaluate efficacy.296 Protocol biopsies have the potential ability to reveal mechanisms of late graft loss and to identify active processes that might be interrupted therapeutically before irreversible injury has occurred.297 The risk of protocol biopsy is low. There were no deaths or graft losses in the Hannover series of more than 1000 biopsies298 and graft loss was 0.04% in another protocol biopsy series.299 The current interest in protocol biopsies started with David Rush and colleagues, who made the surprising observation that 30% of biopsies from stable patients 1 to 3 months posttransplant showed histologic rejection300 and those with these lesions show later loss of renal function.284,301 Many other studies have confirmed this result.229,283,284,292–294 Mononuclear inflammation that meet the Banff criteria for TCMR or borderline acute rejection are found in 5% to 50% of protocol biopsies in the first 12 months, depending on therapy and patient populations.302 Those with inflammation have a higher risk of graft dysfunction or fibrosis at later time points.229,283,293,294 Grafts with both inflammation and fibrosis do the worst,229,287,294,303 In one study, the best predictor of allograft function 1 year after transplantation was persistent inflammation, of any type, including those patterns considered in Banff to be irrelevant to the diagnosis of acute rejection (in areas of IF, around large blood vessels, in nodules, or in subcapsular areas).304 Infiltrates in areas of atrophy correlated with IFTA at 6 months and graft dysfunction at 2 years. In another study, protocol biopsies at 1 year posttransplant that showed fibrosis and inflammation predicted a worse GFR at 5 years compared with biopsies with fibrosis and no inflammation and compared with normal biopsies.305 These results and the results of other studies suggest that these infiltrates are part of the pathogenesis of slow, progressive renal injury.287,288,296 What differentiates infiltrates in patients with stable and unstable graft function? In stable grafts endarteritis is found rarely (0.3% in one series)306 and can herald an impeding acute episode.300 Among the interstitial infiltrates, only the diffuse pattern (rich in macrophages and granzyme B cytotoxic T lymphocytes) was more common in biopsies taken for acute dysfunction.304 In contrast, nodular infiltrates (rich in B cells and activated T cells) were more common in protocol biopsies. Similarly, infiltrates rich in activated

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

macrophages distinguished biopsies with clinical versus subclinical acute rejection.307 Molecular studies have shown that increased levels of transcripts for T-bet (a Th1 master transcription factor), FasL (cytotoxic mediator), and CD152 (CTLA-4, an inhibitory costimulatory molecule) are associated with graft dysfunction.101 Grafts in recipients that are developing tolerance also typically have graft infiltrates, sometimes termed the “acceptance reaction,”308 which spontaneously disappears and is followed by indefinite graft survival.309,310 The acceptance reaction had less infiltration by CD3+ T cells and macrophages, less T cell activation, long lasting apoptosis of graft infiltrating T cells, less IFNγ, and more IL-10 than rejecting grafts.310,311 Recent evidence shows that regulatory T cells (Treg) that express the Foxp3 transcription factor infiltrate tolerated grafts in mice treated with costimulatory blockade.312 Foxp3 cells can also be found in grafts with infiltrates interpreted as acute rejection.92 Although the significance of Foxp3+ cells has yet to be determined, high numbers of such Treg cells are likely beneficial,313 in view of the known suppressor functions of these cells. The hope of much ongoing research is the discovery of markers that predict graft acceptance in a clinical setting.313,314 Subclinical interaction of antibody with graft endothelium (accommodation) has been revealed by the demonstration of diffuse C4d in PTCs, found in 2.0% of routine protocol biopsies,306 and a higher frequency among presensitized patients (17%) or patients with ABO-incompatible grafts (51%).138,172 The stability of such accommodation, referring to the presence of PTC C4d deposition in the absence of other evidence of antibody-mediated injury has not been established. Accommodation is thought to represent a process of endothelial cell adaptation to antibody and complement over time. In accommodation, donor-specific antibodies may be detectable; however, morphologic signs of tissue injury are absent. There are no signs of acute or chronic TCMR or AMR; more specifically, there is no ATNlike minimal inflammation, no glomerulitis [g0], no chronic TG [cg0], no peritubular capillaritis [ptc0], and no PTC basement membrane multilamination. Current Banff criteria refers to this situation as “C4d staining without evidence of active rejection.”157 If there are simultaneous borderline changes, the cases can be considered indeterminate.200 The long-term significance of these relatively uncommon cases is still under investigation.201–203 In nonhuman primates with MHC-incompatible grafts and no immunosuppression, C4d deposition predicts chronic rejection with glomerulopathy and arteriopathy and ultimate graft loss with a high degree of certainty.226 The most important question is whether treatment of subclinical rejection is beneficial (and, if so, what therapy is optimal). No study has dared to randomize treatment in patients with acute rejection on protocol biopsy. The closest to a controlled trial was that of Rush and colleagues, who found that patients with protocol biopsies, treated with steroid boluses if they had subclinical rejection, had a better outcome than a group of patients who declined a renal biopsy (and were presumed to have a similar frequency of subclinical rejection).284 Other diseases revealed by the “eye of the needle” clearly benefit from altered therapy, including CNIT283,315 and polyomavirus infection.316 


Fig. 25.8  Acute tubular necrosis. Dilated “rigid”-appearing tubular lumens with loss of brush borders, occasional loss of nuclei, and cytoplasmic thinning. Mild edema is present but little inflammation. Glomeruli are normal. PAS stain.

Acute Tubular Necrosis The morphologic basis of DGF is usually acute ischemic injury (ATN). The most common feature histologically is loss of the brush borders of proximal tubular cells, best shown on a PAS stain with focal interstitial edema and mononuclear cell accumulation (Fig. 25.8). The tubular lumen appears larger than normal and lacks the usual artifactual sloughing of the apical cytoplasm in human renal biopsies (this sloughing has occurred in vivo and has washed downstream; Fig. 25.9). The other features of ATN include flattening of the cytoplasm and loss of cell nuclei due to apoptosis/death of individual tubular epithelial cells and covering of the TBM by the remaining cells. The lumina contain individual apoptotic detached cells (“anoikis”) and inflammatory cells. Reactive changes in the tubular epithelium are seen after 24 to 48 hours, including large basophilic nuclei with prominent nucleoli, increased cytoplasmic basophilia and occasionally mitoses. Focal interstitial, PTC, and glomerular capillary neutrophils may be seen but are not as prominent as in acute AMR, and C4d is negative. Mechanical flushing of cadaveric kidneys with organ preservation fluid immediately before transplantation (as advocated by some) was associated with abnormal cellular debris within the tubules and eosinophilic proteinaceous material within Bowman’s capsule and an increased frequency of DGF.317 DGF has other causes, and if function has not recovered in 1 to 2 weeks, a diagnostic biopsy is recommended to ascertain the presence of occult acute rejection, found in 18% of patients with DGF at 7 days.318 

Calcineurin Inhibitor Nephrotoxicity The CNI class of drugs, including cyclosporine and tacrolimus, cause both acute and chronic nephrotoxicity that includes ischemic injury without morphologic features,


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice





Fig. 25.9  Polyoma (BK) virus infection. (A) Low power view showing patchy mononuclear inflammation in the medulla with groups of atypical nuclei in tubular epithelium (arrows) (B) Higher power shows polyomavirus inclusion (arrow), marked tubulitis, and tubular cell apoptosis. (C) Immunohistochemistry, monoclonal antibody to SV40 large T antigen (homologous to BK, JC, and other polyoma viruses), many tubular epithelial cell nuclei appear dark brown due to immunoreactivity for polyoma virus. (D) EM, high magnification of a tubular cell nucleus (N) containing polyoma virions (arrow), that are rounded, 30 to 35 nm in diameter and organized in arrays. (From cynomolgus monkey; van Gorder MA, Della Pelle P, Henson JW, Sachs DH, Cosimi AB, Colvin RB. Cynomolgus polyoma virus infection: a new member of the polyoma virus family causes interstitial nephritis, ureteritis, and enteritis in immunosuppressed cynomolgus monkeys. Am J Path 1999;154(4):1273–84.)

vacuolar tubulopathy, acute endothelial injury (TMA), and arteriolar hyalinosis.290,319 These cause secondary pathologic effects, such as TA, IF, and global or segmental glomerulosclerosis. As judged by protocol biopsies, chronic CNIT is universal in renal transplants after about 5 years according to some studies.283 However, changes attributed to CNIT have been less in later studies.295 Chronic CNIT can also damage native kidneys in patients with other organ transplants and contributes to the 7% to 21% prevalence of end-stage renal disease in nonrenal transplant recipients after 5 years.320

ACUTE CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR TOXICITY Toxic Tubulopathy The biopsy features of acute toxicity are quite variable. A normal biopsy is found in “functional CNIT,” which is due to reversible vasospasm.321 In toxic tubulopathy, proximal tubules show the most conspicuous morphologic changes with loss of brush borders and isometric (uniformly sized), clear, fine vacuolization (or microvacuoles) in the epithelial cells (Fig. 25.10). The microvacuoles contain clear aqueous fluid rather than lipid and are indistinguishable from those caused by osmotic diuretics or ischemia. EM shows that the vacuoles in CsA toxicity are due to dilation of the endoplasmic reticulum and appear empty.322 Isometric vacuolization may begin in the straight portion of the proximal tubule,322 although it can extend to the convoluted

Fig. 25.10  Acute calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity with isometric vacuolization of tubular epithelium. This change can also be seen in other causes of tubular injury, including ischemia, osmotic diuretics, and intravenous immunoglobulin.

portion. The degree of vacuolization does not correlate with drug levels; some patients with CNIT lack the vacuolar change,323 and isometric vacuoles can be found in a minority of patients with stable renal function.324 However, reduction of the CNI dosage causes disappearance of tubular vacuolization.102 

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation




Fig. 25.11  TMA associated with calcineurin inhibitors. (A) glomerulus with widespread endothelial swelling, segmental GBM duplication, and focal collapse resembling a crescent. Arterioles show endothelial swelling and occasional peripheral hyaline nodules. PAS stain. (B) No glomerular or PTC C4d deposition is detected in this case. Immunohistochemistry for C4d in paraffin, using rabbit polyclonal anti-C4d.

Acute Arteriolar Toxicity and Thrombotic Microangiopathy Arterioles are a significant target of CNIT. The most characteristic acute changes include individual medial smooth muscle cell degeneration, necrosis/apoptosis, and loss.322 The apoptotic smooth muscle cells are later replaced by rounded, “lumpy” protein deposits or hyalinosis, which is the beginning of a more chronic arteriolopathy.322 Accumulation of glycogen (PAS positive, diastase sensitive) in smooth muscle cells has been described on high doses.325 Endothelial cells can have prominent vacuolization and some swelling. Immunofluorescence microscopy of the vessels often shows deposits of IgM, C3, and sometimes fibrin/ fibrinogen, but these changes are nonspecific.326 TMA due to CNI was first reported in bone marrow transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine327 and occurs in about 1% to 4% of renal allograft recipients, even with careful attention to drug levels, suggesting that it is dose independent and probably idiosyncratic.328,329 Most cases present with a delayed onset and a slow loss of function 1 to 5 months posttransplant.330 The pathologic changes are believed to be an exaggeration of CNI induced endothelial and smooth muscle damage. The small arteries and arterioles have mucoid intimal thickening with acid mucopolysaccharides and extravasated red cells and fragments; fibrinoid necrosis and thrombi may be prominent (Fig. 25.11). Apoptosis of endothelial and smooth muscle cells is seen. The medial smooth muscle can develop a mucoid appearance with loss of a clear definition of the cells.126 The arterioles may show hypertrophy of the endothelial cells and have a “constricted” appearance.126 The vascular lumina may be partially or completely obliterated by the intimal proliferation and endothelial swelling. The vascular lesions are most severe in the interlobular and arcuate-sized arteries, and can lead to cortical infarction.330 By immunofluorescence microscopy, the vessels stain with IgM, C3, and fibrin.131 The glomeruli typically have swollen bloodless capillaries with scattered fibrin-platelet thrombi (see Fig. 25.11),

particularly in the hilum,327 the so-called pouch lesion.331 The endothelial cells are swollen and may completely obliterate the capillary lumina. The GBM is segmentally duplicated with cellular (mononuclear or mesangial cell) interposition best seen by EM, which also shows the loss of fenestrae and swelling of the endothelial cytoplasm. Variable mesangial expansion, sclerosis, and mesangiolysis331 may be seen. Marked congestion and focal, global, or segmental necrosis can be present.332 

Differential Diagnosis Acute tubular toxicity of CsA may be indistinguishable from ischemia or tubulopathy from intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or mannitol, which all have vacuoles by light microscopy.333 By EM a more coarse and varied vacuolization is typical of ATN and the periphery of infarcts334 compared with the isometric (uniform) vacuoles of CsA toxicity. The vacuoles of osmotic diuretic injury do not involve the endoplasmic reticulum, as do those of CsA toxicity.331 Necrosis of tubular cells is more common in ATN (0.5% of tubules), characteristically involving whole tubular cross sections.324 Acute medial apoptosis/degeneration in arterioles is the only definitive finding favoring CsA toxicity. Morphology alone cannot distinguish the various etiologies of TMA,335,336 which in renal transplants are most commonly CNI, acute AMR, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and recurrent TMA. Recurrence should be the first choice when the recipient’s original disease was TMA, unless associated with a diarrheal illness. C4d deposition in PTCs is present in acute AMR but absent in CNI-associated TMA (see section on acute AMR). Serum should also be tested for antiHLA class I, class II, and antiendothelial antibodies. HCV(+) renal allograft recipients may develop TMA with associated elevation of circulating anticardiolipin antibody,337 thus hepatitis serology and anticardiolipin antibody determination could help distinguish between HCV versus CNI in the etiology of TMA. The healing phase of TMA may leave intimal fibrosis that resembles chronic rejection, even with a few intimal mononuclear cells.131 


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

CHRONIC CALCINEURIN INHIBITOR TOXICITY Irreversible chronic renal failure due to CNIT was first demonstrated in native kidneys of heart transplant patients who received cyclosporine for more than a year.338 Similar lesions arise in patients on tacrolimus.339 Biopsies showed IFTA, arteriolar hyalinosis, and sometimes focal glomerular scarring. These findings have been confirmed and extended in numerous other studies.326 More recent studies of patients mostly on maintenance immunosuppression with tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisone showed less prevalent chronic changes of moderate or severe arteriolar hyalinosis and IFTA than was noted on previous studies of patients on immunosuppressive regimens including cyclosporine.340 Because many features resemble chronic rejection in the kidney, the most convincing pathology data come from nonrenal transplant patients on cyclosporine.341,342

CNI-Arteriolopathy The chronic phase of CNI-arteriolopathy is characterized by replacement of the degenerated medial smooth muscle cells with hyaline-like deposits, in a beaded pattern along the peripheral outer media (see Fig. 25.7). This has been referred to as “nodular protein (hyaline) deposits”289 in a “pearl-like pattern”326 and “peripheral medial nodular hyalinosis,” and is now called “CNI-arteriolopathy.” The current evidence supports the view that this type of arteriolopathy is relatively specific for CNI. In heart and bone marrow transplant recipient autopsy studies, 55% of cases on cyclosporine had this type of arteriolopathy in the native kidneys compared with 0% in those not on CNIs.341 Evidence of apoptosis is sometimes found in the form of karyorrhexic debris in the media, but fibrinoid necrosis is not observed.343 In severe cases the media is nearly devoid of smooth muscle cells.343 EM reveals a distinctive replacement of individual smooth muscle cells of afferent arterioles with amorphous electrondense material, which contains cell debris and protrudes into the adventitia (see Fig. 25.7B).326,344,345 This gives rise to the beaded hyalinosis distribution in the outer media noted by light microscopy. The myocyte nuclei are sometimes condensed (apoptotic) or have two nuclei or mitotic figures.344 The cytoplasm is vacuolated, with dilated endoplasmic reticulum, and has degenerated mitochondria, lipofuscin granules, multivesicular bodies, and a disarray of microfibrils and reduced intercellular junctions. The endothelium sometimes appears “swollen,” protruding into and narrowing the lumen, and having reduced cell junctions; aggregates of platelets are rare.344,346 These findings support the view that the smooth muscle myocyte of the afferent arteriole is a primary target of CNI injury. Immunofluorescence microscopy shows IgM and C3 in a relatively nonspecific, but conspicuous sheathing of the arterioles.326 CNI-arteriolopathy begins and predominates in the afferent arterioles but may progress to the small arteries and efferent arterioles.326,344 Decreased renin immunostaining in the juxtaglomerular apparatus suggests that the prime target of CNI is the renin-producing smooth muscle cell in the afferent arteriole.347 The frequency of arterioles affected with hyalinosis is typically small (<15%), and the lesions can easily be overlooked.348 In renal transplant patients on

cyclosporine, 15% of protocol biopsies at 6 months showed CNI-arteriolopathy which increased to 45% in 18-month protocol biopsies349; “nonspecific” hyalinosis showed no progressive increase. The arteriolar lesions also develop in native kidneys of patients who receive even low doses of cyclosporine for 2 years.350,351 Mihatsch has suggested a scoring system of CNI-arteriolopathy with improved reproducibility.352 

Glomerular Lesions After 1 year on cyclosporine, glomeruli show increased numbers with global or segmental sclerosis.341,342 Focal, segmental sclerosis was more common in CNI-treated bone marrow (13%) and heart transplant (27%) recipients at autopsy than their respective CNI-free controls (0% and 14%).341 Heart transplant recipients have an increase in the heterogeneity of glomerular volume and size, with more small and large glomeruli (compensatory hypertrophy), compared with controls (living kidney donors).343 The shift to smaller glomeruli becomes more extreme with chronic renal failure and the hypertrophied glomeruli disappear.353 Thus hyperfiltration injury probably causes the progressive glomerular proteinuria and sclerosis. Bone marrow and heart transplant patients at autopsy show glomerular collapse in 59% of the patients on CNI versus 8% of those not on CNI.341 This can develop into florid collapsing glomerulopathy, attributed to the severe CNI-arteriolopathy.354 Immunofluorescence findings are nonspecific (IgM and C3 in scarred areas). EM in cardiac and liver transplant recipients showed diffuse expansion of the mesangial matrix, with little hypercellularity, GBM, or podocyte lesions.342,343 Those with frank collapsing glomerulopathy have podocyte foot process effacement and detachment of podocytes from the GBM.354 The endothelium shows loss of its normal fenestrae, perhaps reflecting a component of TMA.131  Tubules and Interstitium IFTA was recognized as a feature of CNIT in the early studies.355 The interstitium had prominent patchy fibrosis, with a scanty infiltrate. Band-like narrow zones of IFTA (“striped fibrosis”) were once regarded as characteristic of CNIT127,356,357; however, indistinguishable “stripes” occur in patients not maintained on CNI,358 casting doubt on the specificity of that pattern. IF also develops in native kidneys in patients on CNI350,359–361 and remains for at least a month after discontinuing the drug.362 Thus even low doses of CsA can cause significant and presumably permanent loss of renal function by inducing chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis.131  Differential Diagnosis Distinction between chronic rejection and chronic CNIT is a challenge (Table 25.6). The finding that favors CNIT most decisively is the arteriolopathy, provided it is distinctive (isolated smooth muscle cell degeneration and string of pearls replacement by hyalinosis in the outer media).319 The arterioles are relatively spared in chronic rejection, compared with chronic CNIT, and the arteries are more affected, with proliferative intimal fibrosis without elastosis.319 PTC C4d deposits or mononuclear cells in the arterial intima are the most useful signs of an active rejection process. An inflammatory infiltrate, including plasma cells,

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation

TABLE 25.6  Differentiation Between Chronic Rejection and Chronic CNI Toxicity Interstitium Infiltrate Fibrosis

Chronic Rejection

CNI Toxicity

Plasma cells Patchy

Mild Patchy, “striped”

PERITUBULAR CAPILLARIES C4d Often positive BM multilamination Usual

Negative Absent

TUBULES Tubular atrophy Vacuoles

Usual Occasional

Usual Occasional

ARTERIOLES Smooth muscle degeneration Absent External nodular hyalinosis Absent

Usual Present

ARTERIES Intimal fibrosis


Intimal mononuclear cells


Can be present but unrelated Absent

GLOMERULI Duplication GBM Mesangial expansion

Usual Can be present

Absent Can be present

BM, basement membrane; CNI, calcineurin inhibitor; GBM, glomerular basement membrane.

is less common in CNIT than rejection.363 Other features are not decisive. IFTA and glomerular sclerosis are found in either. GBM duplication and endothelial dedifferentiation can also be seen in either, although perhaps more commonly in chronic rejection.131 

Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Toxicity Inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (TORi; rapamycin, everolimus, sirolimus) can cause DGF due to tubular toxicity that resembles myeloma cast nephropathy. Pathologically, in addition to acute tubular injury, eosinophilic debris and macrophages were present in tubular lumina, which mimicked myeloma casts, but the casts stain for keratin, rather than immunoglobulin light chains.364 TORi can also cause TMA, indistinguishable from that due to CNI.365 Increased proteinuria is common in patients switched from CNI to TORi because they had developed severe CNIT. In these patients, GFR improves but increased proteinuria develops in about 30%.366 CNI exposure is not necessary for the proteinuric response to TORi. Conversion from azathioprine to TORi can also cause increased proteinuria.367 Patients started on TORi without CNI had double the risk of proteinuria at 6 to 12 months compared with those on CNI.368 Few pathologic studies have been published. One reported a variety of glomerular diseases typical of native kidneys, suggesting recurrent disease.369 A recipient begun on TORi, developed 12 g/day proteinuria in the first week after transplantation, which remitted after the drug was discontinued.370 Biopsy showed that no obvious glomerular disease was evident by light, immunofluorescence, or EM, suggesting the proteinuria was due to failure of tubular


reabsorption. One notable case report described collapsing glomerulopathy in a patient with Kaposi’s sarcoma converted to TORi from azathioprine.371 We have seen two cases of focal, segmental glomerulosclerosis, in patients started on TORi; one had collapsing glomerulopathy (Cornell et al., unpublished). More pathology studies are clearly needed, particularly on those patients started on TORi.131 

Drug-Induced Acute Tubulointerstitial Nephritis Drug-induced interstitial nephritis in the allograft is similar to that in the native kidney and resembles tubulointerstitial rejection. Both are characterized by an intense mononuclear interstitial infiltrate and tubulitis, and have variable numbers of eosinophils. Acute rejection occasionally has a prominent eosinophilic infiltrate.54,372–376 Conversely, druginduced interstitial nephritis may have no eosinophils, especially those due to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.377 Endarteritis, if present, is unequivocal evidence for rejection. Strong, but not absolute, evidence for a drug etiology is the invasion of multiple tubules by eosinophils, and eosinophils in tubular casts (Colvin, unpublished observation), usually attributed to prophylactic trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim). We have also seen one case of severe acute interstitial nephritis and serum sickness-like syndrome secondary to horse anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG).131 Interstitial nephritis can sometimes have a granulomatous pattern; and this pattern can indicate a variety of potential etiologies, including drugs, infections, and recurrent diseases such as sarcoidosis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis.378 

Infections Many organisms can infect the transplanted kidney, ranging from mycobacteria and Candida,379 to herpes simplex virus380 and human herpesvirus 1 (HHV-1, also known as Herpes simplex virus-1 [HSV-1]).380 In addition, viruses such as CMV and HCV can have indirect effects on the transplant, promoting rejection or immune-mediated disease.91,116,381 CMV can also directly infect the allograft, particularly in glomerular endothelial cells. Here we will discuss the three most important types of infections, polyomavirus, adenovirus, and bacterial pyelonephritis.

POLYOMAVIRUS TUBULOINTERSTITIAL NEPHRITIS PTN has emerged since 1996 as a significant cause of early and late graft damage.382–387 Among various series of patients on tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil, PTN arises in about 5%, similar to the prevalence of acute rejection. The virus was originally isolated from B.K., a Sudanese patient who had distal donor ureteral stenosis 3 months after a living related transplant.388 BK virus is related to JC virus (which also inhabits the human urinary tract) and to simian virus SV40. These viruses are members of the papovavirus group, which includes the papilloma viruses. The BK virus commonly infects urothelium but rarely causes morbidity in immunocompetent individuals. However, in


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice



Fig. 25.12  Recurrent diabetic nephropathy 12 years after transplant. (A) Glomerulus with prominent Kimmelstiel-Wilson mesangial nodules (arrow) and arteriolar hyalinosis. PAS stain. (B) EM of another case shows homogeneous thickening of the GBM up to 1100 nm. C, capillary lumen; U, urinary space.

renal transplant recipients three lesions have been attributed to BK virus: hemorrhagic cystitis, ureteral stenosis, and interstitial nephritis.389–391 PTN is characterized by a patchy mononuclear infiltrate associated with tubulitis and tubular cell injury.387 The infiltrate often contains plasma cells, which sometimes invade the tubules (see Fig. 25.9). Concurrent TCMR may be present. Tubular cell apoptosis is prominent as well as “dedifferentiation” of tubular epithelial cells, with loss of polarity and a spindly shape. PTN has three recognized stages: stage A has only minimal inflammation; stage B shows marked tubular injury, denudation of the tubular basement membranes, and interstitial edema with a mixed, mild to marked inflammatory cell infiltrate; and stage C has marked IFTA.382,392–395 The recognition of viral nuclear inclusions is the key step in histologic diagnosis. The affected nuclei are usually enlarged with a smudgy, amorphous lavender inclusion (see Fig. 25.9B). Other nuclear changes found less commonly are eosinophilic, granular inclusions with or without a halo and a vesicular variant with coarsely clumped, irregular basophilic material.78,385,396 These nuclear inclusions tend to be grouped in tubules, particularly collecting ducts in the cortex and outer medulla, and can often be spotted at low power. IHC and EM confirm the diagnosis. Monoclonal antibodies are commercially available that react with BK-specific determinants and with the large T antigen of several polyoma species (see Fig. 25.9C). In situ hybridization for BK polyomavirus is used at some centers as an alternative to IHC. EM will reveal the characteristic intranuclear paracrystalline arrays of viral particles of about 40 nm diameter (Fig. 25.12D). Other tests useful for monitoring patients at risk are urine cytology (“decoy cells”) and PCR quantitation of virus in the blood, although these are not specific enough to make a PTN diagnosis.131 Polyomavirus infections may cause an immune complex deposition along the TBM, as described in 43% of cases in a series from Seattle, being the most common cause of IgG deposits in the TBM of transplants.397 Granular IgG, C3, and C4d are focally present by immunofluorescence and amorphous electron-dense deposits by EM. The prognostic significance is not known.131 Late graft fibrosis and scarring “CAN” may be caused by polyomavirus, even though the virus is no longer

demonstrable. The virus is cytopathic for tubular cells and leads to characteristically destructive tubular lesions, with only TBM remaining. The diagnosis is sometimes only possible by review of prior biopsies. Suspicion of PTN is heightened if tubular destruction is severe. The process may be clinically silent: protocol biopsies have shown a subclinical incidence of PTN of 1.2%.316 Furthermore, PTN can affect native kidneys of recipients of nonrenal allografts; only a few cases have been reported, but this may be in part due to a presumption of CNIT and a lack of renal biopsies in this setting.398 

ADENOVIRUS Adenovirus, most frequently serotype 11, causes hemorrhagic cystitis and occasionally tubulointerstitial nephritis in renal allografts, which may resemble a space-occupying lesion by imaging studies.399,400 Biopsy shows necrotizing inflammation with neutrophils and tubular destruction, interstitial hemorrhage and red cell casts, granulomatous inflammation,401–404 or a zonal inflammation localized to the outer medulla.405 Tubular cells have intranuclear ground glass inclusions with a distinct halo surrounded by a ring of marginated chromatin and glassy smudged nuclei. The diagnosis is established by immunoperoxidase stains for viral antigen in tubular cells and EM to reveal the intranuclear crystalline arrays of 75- to 80-nm viral particles. Immune complexes may also contribute to the injury. Decreased immunosuppression has been followed by recovery.131 

ACUTE PYELONEPHRITIS Pyelonephritis is a potentially devastating complication of transplantation. Pyelonephritis can present as acute renal failure406,407 and cause graft loss.408,409 According to one series, pyelonephritis arises most often 1 year or more after transplantation (80% of episodes), and E. coli was the most common organism (80%).410 Acute pyelonephritis is a not an uncommon finding on renal biopsy, despite the expectation that the process is patchy.406 Renal biopsies are not the usual method of diagnosis, however, if neutrophils are abundant, especially if they form destructive abscesses and casts in tubules, the diagnosis should be at the top of the list. Other variants are

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation


emphysematous pyelonephritis, due to gas-producing organisms,409 xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis,411,412 and malakoplakia.413 

Major Renal Vascular Disease Most arterial thromboses develop in the early posttransplant period and produce acute infarction with microthrombi and scant inflammation.414 Evidence for underlying rejection should be sought by careful examination of the larger arteries for endarteritis. Renal artery stenosis (typically at the anastomosis site), a cause of late graft dysfunction, can be deceptive clinically and pathologically.415,416 Biopsies show tubular injury or atrophy with relatively little inflammation or fibrosis. Renal vein thrombosis causes a swollen and purple kidney, sometimes with graft rupture.417 The cortex shows severe hemorrhagic congestion and extensive infarction and necrosis418 sometimes with diffuse microcapillary thrombi. Intracapillary leukocytes can be a clue as in native kidneys. Late renal vein thrombosis is associated with proteinuria due to membranous glomerulonephritis or TG, sometimes with graft loss.419 Lupus anticoagulant has been detected in a few patients.420 

De Novo Glomerular Disease Patients without previous glomerular disease occasionally develop lesions in the allograft that resemble a primary glomerular disease, rather than the usual transplant glomerulopathy. Although some are no doubt coincidental, at least three are related to an alloimmune response to the allograft: membranous glomerulonephritis, anti-GBM disease in Alport’s syndrome, and recurrent nephrotic syndrome in congenital nephrosis. A fourth relatively common de novo glomerular disease, FSGS, is believed to be related to hyperfiltration injury of the allograft or marked microvascular compromise due to CNIT.131

MEMBRANOUS GLOMERULONEPHRITIS De novo MGN is typically a late complication, with a prevalence of about 1% to 2%.421–423 In contrast, recurrent MGN can present early.424 The risk factors for de novo MGN include time after transplant, de novo MGN in a first graft,421 and HCV infection.422,423 Light microscopy usually shows rather mild GBM changes. Mesangial hypercellularity is found in about 33%. Mononuclear cells can be abundant in glomerular capillaries, raising the possibility of transplant glomerulitis or renal vein thrombosis.425 Immunofluorescence shows granular deposits along the GBM that stain for IgG, C3, C4d, and factor H426; about 35% are more irregular and segmental in distribution than typical primary (idiopathic) MGN.425,427 By EM, subepithelial electron-dense deposits are present (Fig. 25.13), which are smaller and more irregular in distribution than primary MGN.425,427 Endothelial changes and GBM duplication typical of TG are present in half of the cases.425,427 Repeat biopsies have shown persistence or progression of the deposits in most cases and occasional resolution.425,428

Fig. 25.13 De novo membranous glomerulonephritis: subepithelial electron-dense deposits (arrows) along the GBM with intervening basement membrane spikes. Podocyte (P) foot processes are effaced. C, capillary lumen; U, urinary space.

The pathogenesis of de novo MGN has not been established. The literature supports the hypothesis that de novo MGN may be a form of AMR or directed at minor histocompatibility antigen(s) in the glomerulus, presumably on the podocyte or a special type of chronic rejection.234,427,429 The common presence of TG is consistent with this hypothesis.425,427 Phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) staining can be useful in the evaluation of allograft MGN. In one study, PLA2R staining had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 92% (for recurrent MG; PLA2R staining was almost always negative in de novo MGN.430 

ANTI-GBM NEPHRITIS Patients with Alport’s syndrome or hereditary nephritis commonly develop anti-GBM alloantibodies, because they genetically lack self-tolerance to GBM collagen components. However, this leads to glomerulonephritis in only a minority. Overall, de novo crescentic and necrotizing glomerulonephritis due to anti-GBM antibodies after transplantation is uncommon, seen in only 5% of male adult renal allograft recipients with typical Alport’s syndrome431,432 or hereditary nephritis with deafness.433 The pathology is similar to that in native kidney with prominent crescents (not a feature of allograft rejection), segmental necrosis, and red cell casts. Second transplantation with and without recurrent anti-GBM nephritis have both been reported.434–436 The 5-year graft survival may be equal to that of non-Alport’s recipients.437 

DE NOVO PODOCYTOPATHY IN CONGENITAL NEPHROSIS Congenital nephrotic syndrome of the Finnish type, an autosomal recessive disease due to mutations in the nephrin gene NPHS1, paradoxically leads to posttransplant nephrotic syndrome.438,439 The podocyte pathology resembles minimal change disease and usually responds to cyclophosphamide.440,441 De novo “minimal change disease” is thought to be caused by the alloantibodies to nephrin in some cases.442 


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

TABLE 25.7  Classification of Recurrent Renal Disease I. USUALLY RECUR (>50% PATIENTS) A. Adverse effecta Primary HUS Dense deposit disease Collapsing FSGSc B. Little or no adverse Immunotactoid/fibrillary glomerulopathyc affect Systemic light chain diseasec Diabetes mellitusd

Fig. 25.14  De novo collapsing glomerulopathy: collapsed glomerular capillaries and prominent podocyte proliferation, hypertrophy, and abundant reabsorption droplets. Severe arteriolar hyalinosis with peripheral nodules typical of CNI arteriolopathy was present. This is a native kidney in a patient with a heart-lung transplant.354 PAS stain.

FOCAL SEGMENTAL GLOMERULOSCLEROSIS De novo FSGS has been described in adult recipients of pediatric kidneys,443,444 in which the presumed pathogenesis is hyperfiltration injury; in long-standing grafts, in which parenchymal loss due to CNIT or chronic rejection leads to hyperfiltration injury of residual glomeruli; and as the collapsing variant of FSGS, probably related to CNI-arteriolopathy.445 De novo collapsing glomerulopathy presents months to years after transplantation with proteinuria (2–12 g/ day).445–447 Diffuse or focal, global or segmental collapse of glomeruli was evident with prominent hyperreactive podocytes (Fig. 25.14). Arteriolar hyalinosis, arteriosclerosis, and IF were also present. A rapid progression to renal failure occurred in 80% of the patients (2–12 months). The cause is unknown; all patients were HIV negative. Collapsing glomerulopathy can also develop in native kidneys in patients on CNI (see Fig. 25.14).354 

Recurrent Renal Disease Recurrent disease is a significant cause of allograft failure.448–450 The frequency and clinical significance of recurrence varies with the disease (Table 25.7). In one study, glomerular diseases, including recurrent and de novo glomerulonephritis and transplant glomerulopathy, were responsible for 37% of cases of graft loss, and 14% of deathcensored graft losses were due to recurrent glomerular disease297 (e.g., recurrent dense deposit disease in Fig. 25.15). Recurrence of immune-mediated disease may become a greater problem in the future with longer graft survival and development of tolerance protocols that require no immunosuppression. The reader is referred to a comprehensive review elsewhere for detailed information regarding specific diseases.9 Transplantation also can uniquely illuminate the early pathologic events that precede clinical signs and determine

II. COMMONLY RECUR (5%–50%) A. Adverse effect Focal, segmental glomerulosclerosis Membranoproliferative GN,b type I Membranous GN ANCA related diseases Wegener’s granulomatosis Pauci-immune GN Microscopic polyarteritis Progressive systemic sclerosis Sickle cell nephropathyc B. Little or no adverse IgA nephropathy affect Henoch-Schönlein purpura Amyloidosis III. RARELY RECUR (<5%) A. Adverse effect Anti-GBM disease B. Little or no adverse Systemic lupus erythematosus affect Fabry’s disease Cystinosis IV. NEVER RECUR (ESSENTIALLY 0%) A. Unique complications Hereditary nephritis/Alport’s syndrome (anti-GBM disease) Congenital nephrosis (nephrotic syndrome; nephrin autoantibody?) B. No unique complicaPolycystic disease (all genetic types) tions Osteo-onychodysplasia (nail-patella)c Acquired cystic disease Secondary HUS (infection) Secondary FGS Familial FGSc Postinfectious acute glomerulonephritisc V. Unclassified, recurrence Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura reportede Adenosine phosphoribosyl transferase deficiency Familial fibronectin glomerulopathy Lipoprotein glomerulopathy Malacoplakia aAdverse

effect defined as graft loss of >5% (when disease recurs) antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody; FSGS, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis; GBM, glomerular basement membrane; GN, glomerulonephritis; HUS, hemolytic-uremic syndrome. cLimited experience: few cases reported (n < 10). dArteriolar and glomerular lesions will recur to some degree in most if not all cases, but severe form (nodular) delayed until >5 years. eRecurrence occurs, but too few cases reported to classify frequency or consequences. bANCA,

the reversibility of preexisting lesions in the donor kidney (e.g., diabetes, IgA nephropathy). For example, in early recurrent MGN, as early as 2 weeks posttransplant the glomeruli can show staining in a membranous pattern by immunofluorescence for IgG, C4d, and kappa and lambda light chains, but corresponding electron-dense deposits may not be present ultrastructurally; these features can be seen on biopsy without proteinuria clinically.424 Later biopsies of the allografts show a more typical membranous pattern with subepithelial deposits by EM.451 Diabetic nephropathy begins with an increase in allograft glomerular volume at 6 months,452 followed by increases

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation




Fig. 25.15  Recurrent dense deposit disease. (A) EM, widespread very electron-dense deposits that are continuous, linear, and embedded in the GBM proper, (i.e., intramembranous [arrows]). Similar deposits are also seen in the mesangium (M). C, capillary lumen; U, urinary space. (B) immunofluorescence microscopy, staining for C3 shows broad, linear ribbon-like deposits along the GBM and blob-like deposits in the mesangium (mesangial rings).

in mesangial volume453 and mesangial sclerosis, which is present 10 years after transplantation in the majority of patients who had diabetes at baseline, as was nicely demonstrated in one study.454 Thickening of the GBM is first evident after 2 to 3 years453,455 and nodular diabetic glomerulosclerosis at 5 to 15 years posttransplant (see Fig. 25.12).456 Tubulointerstitial diseases may also recur, such as with recurrent oxalate nephropathy in primary hyperoxaluria.457 A chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis mediated by antibodies against the proximal tubule brush border can recur after transplantation. Patients present with renal failure ranging from slowly progressive to acute with little or no proteinuria and a bland urinary sediment. Tubules appear injured, and focal tubulitis may be present amid an infiltrate of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and few eosinophils. On PAS stains, there is a diffuse loss in proximal tubule brush borders. Immunofluorescence shows widespread granular deposits along the TBM that stain for IgG and C3, and prominent amorphous electron-dense deposits are seen in the TBM on EM.458 Recent data indicate that LDL receptor-related protein 2 (LRP2), also known as megalin, is the target in this anti-brush border antibody disease (ABBA disease).459 

Posttransplant Malignancy and Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disease Immunosuppression leads to an increased risk of malignancy, particularly those neoplasms caused by viruses and ultraviolet radiation. These malignancies are presumptively suppressed by immune responses that recognize the viral or mutation-derived neoantigens. Immunosuppressive agents may interfere with normal immune surveillance and mechanisms of DNA repair, and some common posttransplant viral infections are associated with malignancy.460 There is an approximately twofold increased risk of common cancers (colon, lung, prostate, and breast) in kidney transplant patients in the first 3 years posttransplant compared with the general population,461 so transplant patients should be part of appropriate cancer screening protocols. End-stage renal disease patients and hemodialysis patients not on

immunosuppression are also at increased risk for malignancy,462 likely in part due to various functional immune system abnormalities related to uremia and dialysis. Those cancers increased in kidney transplant recipients compared with patients on the transplant waiting list include Kaposi’s sarcoma (associated with human herpesvirus-8 [HHV-8]), PTLD (some associated with Epstein-Barr virus [EBV]), genitourinary cancers in women (some associated with human papillomavirus), nonmelanoma skin cancers, melanoma, and mouth and esophageal cancers, among others.460,461 The renal pathologist must be particularly aware of PTLD, as it can affect the graft and cause graft dysfunction. PTLD refers to a spectrum of lymphocytic or plasmacytic proliferations, ranging from EBV-positive polyclonal proliferations of plasmacytic hyperplasia and infectious mononucleosis-like PTLD to EBV-positive or -negative monoclonal lymphomas.463 Early and late-occurring PTLDs are relatively distinct clinicopathologic entities, with late-occurring PTLD resembling lymphoproliferative disorders in immunocompetent patients.464,465 PTLDs that arise relatively early posttransplant (<1 year) tend to be associated with EBV466 and are composed of lymphocytes of donor origin.467 In one study, most donor-origin PTLDs developed in the kidney allograft; 79% of these were EBV-positive.467 PTLDs that arise late posttransplant are less frequently associated with EBV, more likely to be of recipient origin,467 and have a poorer prognosis.464,466 PTLD occurs in approximately 0.3% of kidney transplant recipients by 1 year posttransplant and 1.6% by 10 years.468 Risk factors for development of PTLD in renal transplant patients include recipient EBV seronegativity with an EBV seropositive donor,469 recipient age <18 years470 (due to higher rate of EBV seronegativity in children), age over 60 years at the time of transplantation in adult patients,471 greater degree of immunosuppression, antirejection therapy with OKT3 or antithymocyte globulin,468 use of belatacept (T cell costimulation blocker) for immunosuppression,472,473 and viral coinfection with HCV or CMV. The morphologic appearance of PTLD can vary (e.g., Fig. 25.16). Most (86%–92%) are B cell predominant; 68% to 81% are EBV-positive.471,474 PTLD involves the renal allograft in at least 21% of cases (with or without extrarenal involvement),474 with one study showing graft involvement in 49% of PTLD cases in renal transplant recipients.467 Most PTLDs involving the allograft have a polymorphous


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice



Fig. 25.16  Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease. (A) Dense mononuclear cell infiltrate in the interstitium that permeates between the tubules without tubulitis (although tubulitis may occur in PTLD). The monomorphic infiltrate and the lack of edema distinguish PTLD from the usual cellular rejection. (B) In situ hybridization, nuclei of mononuclear cells stain dark, brown-black for EBER (Epstein-Barr virus encoded RNA), which is the definitive test for the diagnosis of PTLD.

appearance.463 The kidney is infiltrated with cells that include small lymphocytes, plasma cells, and varying numbers of immunoblasts with large nuclei and prominent nucleoli. The plasma cells usually (but not always) have a monotypic staining pattern for kappa or lambda light chain. Rarely, other types of PTLD occur in the kidney, including pure plasmacytic lesions, T cell lymphomas, and NK cell lymphomas.463 If needed, consultation with a hematopathologist can help the renal pathologist make the diagnosis of a PTLD. PTLD involving the kidney can resemble TCMR in having a widespread mononuclear infiltrate invading tubules and even vessels.60,475,476 In TCMR, the infiltrating cells are not positive for EBV, a feature that helps distinguish TCMR and PTLD in the early posttransplant period. EBV is best demonstrated by in situ hybridization for EBER (EBV encoded RNA; see Fig. 25.16). In some cases, a useful clue that favors PTLD is when the infiltrate forms a dense sheet of monomorphic, large lymphoid cells with vesicular chromatin and prominent nucleoli, without accompanying edema or granulocytes (see Fig. 25.16). Serpiginous necrosis of the lymphoid cells (irregular patches) has been described, but is not always present in PTLD.476 Carcinoma of the urinary tract has been associated with polyomavirus infection.477–481 In the past, the possibility that polyomavirus could contribute to tumorigenesis was not widely considered; however, in transplant recipients with a history of polyomavirus-associated nephropathy, expression of the SV40 polyomavirus large T antigen has recently been demonstrated in numerous renourinary tumors (e.g., transplant kidney, native kidney, renal pelvicalyceal system, graft ureter, bladder, and metastases from some of these tumors). In polyomavirus infection, polyomavirus early and late proteins (large tumor antigen [LTag] and viral capsid protein 1 [VP1], respectively) are expressed; and LTag inactivates the p53 tumor suppressor gene, leading to positive P53 staining. As cells become dysplastic and frankly malignant, cells become positive for Ki67, indicating proliferative activity, and both P53 and P16, indicating tumor suppressor gene inactivation and cell cycle regulation loss. Later in the process, VP1 staining can become negative due to a process referred to as early/ late viral gene region (EVGR/LVGR) uncoupling. The retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein (pRB) is also implicated in the pathogenesis of these tumors. The tumors are

typically high-grade urothelial carcinomas481; however, they may exhibit unique morphologies such as micropapillary479 and giant cell components.478 Collecting duct carcinomas have also been described.482,483 

Future Directions in Biopsy Assessment Biopsy assessment will likely further improve from advances in image analysis techniques and molecular understanding. The contribution from a variety of “-omics” fields and technologies has led to improvements in allograft biopsy assessment.484,485 Molecular phenotypes have been characterized for a variety of pathologic states in renal allograft biopsies; however, the clinical utility of these molecular phenotypes will need additional validation before it is understood the circumstances in which molecular assessment can be superior to histopathology. In addition, before molecular biopsy assessment is clinically feasible as an adjunct to histopathology, additional improvements are needed in molecular method turnaround time, cost, and the reporting required for high-dimensional “-omics” data. Digital microscopic techniques (e.g., whole slide scanning) are also emerging that will likely improve biopsy assessment. Whole histology slide images contain highly detailed image information, allowing data mining through computer-based image analysis techniques. For example, interstitial fibrosis assessment can be automated; and automation can likely make interstitial fibrosis assessment more reproducible.486–488 Algorithms are available for additional features such as inflammatory cell infiltration, microvessel density, and a variety of other parameters.489,490 Multiparameter staining techniques can be coupled with digital imaging and analysis algorithms to provide more objective and quantitative assessment of molecular derangements in the renal biopsies.489 Advancements in technology such as artificial intelligence/machine learning and pathologic understanding will likely provide a more complete picture and allow enhanced patient care.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to a coauthor of a prior version, Shamila Mauiyyedi, MD, and to Dr. Paul J. Kurtin, for his useful suggestions on the manuscript.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation


1. Kiss D, Landman J, Mihatsch M, Huser B, Brunner F, Thiel G. Risks and benefits of graft biopsy in renal transplantation under cyclosporin-A. Clin Nephrol 1992;38(3):132–4. 2. Kon SP, Templar J, Dodd SM, Rudge CJ, Raftery MJ. Diagnostic contribution of renal allograft biopsies at various intervals after transplantation. Transplantation 1997;63(4):547–50. 3. Pascual M, Vallhonrat H, Cosimi AB, et  al. The clinical usefulness of the renal allograft biopsy in the cyclosporine era: a prospective study. Transplantation 1999;67(5):737–41. 4. Williams WW, Taheri D, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Colvin RB. Clinical role of the renal transplant biopsy. Nat Rev Nephrol 2012;8(2):110–21. 5. Halloran PF, Famulski KS, Reeve J. Molecular assessment of disease states in kidney transplant biopsy samples. Nat Rev Nephrol 2016;12(9):534–48. 6. Reeve J, Bohmig GA, Eskandary F, et al. Assessing rejection-related disease in kidney transplant biopsies based on archetypal analysis of molecular phenotypes. JCI Insight 2017;2(12). 7. Adam B, Mengel M. Transplant biopsy beyond light microscopy. BMC Nephrol 2015;16:132:1–7. 8. Adam B, Mengel M. Molecular nephropathology: ready for prime time? Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2015;309(3):F185–8. 9. Nickeleit V, Mengel M, Colvin RB. Renal transplant pathology. In: Jennette JC, Olson JL, Silva FG, D’Agati VD, editors. Heptinstall’s Pathology of the Kidney. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2015. p. 1321–459. 10. Solez K, Axelsen RA, Benediktsson H, et  al. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Int 1993;44(2):411–22. 11. Colvin RB, Cohen AH, Saiontz C, et al. Evaluation of pathologic criteria for acute renal allograft rejection: reproducibility, sensitivity, and clinical correlation. J Am Soc Nephrol 1997;8(12):1930–41. 12. Wang H, Nanra RS, Carney SL, et  al. The renal medulla in acute renal allograft rejection: comparison with renal cortex. Neph Dial Transplant 1995;10(8):1428–31. 13. Cohen AH, Gonzalez S, Nast CC, Wilkinson A, Danovitch GM. Frozen-section analysis of allograft renal biopsy specimens. Reliable histopathologic data for rapid decision making. A Path Lab Med 1991;115(4):386–9. 14. Collins AB, Schneeberger EE, Pascual MA, et  al. Complement activation in acute humoral renal allograft rejection: diagnostic significance of C4d deposits in peritubular capillaries. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10(10):2208–14. 15. Ivanyi B, Kemeny E, Szederkenyi E, Marofka F, Szenohradszky P. The value of electron microscopy in the diagnosis of chronic renal allograft rejection. Mod Path 2001;14(12):1200–8. 16. Collins AB, Chicano SL, Cornell LD, et  al. Putative antibody-mediated rejection with C4d deposition in HLA-identical, ABO-compatible renal allografts. Transplant Proc 2006;38(10):3427–9. 17. Mengel M, Sis B, Haas M, et  al. Banff 2011 Meeting report: new concepts in antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant 2012;12(3):563–70. 18. Nyberg G, Hedman L, Blohme I, Svalander C. Morphologic findings in baseline kidney biopsies from living related donors. Transplant Proc 1992;24(1):355–6. 19. Cahen R, Dijoud F, Couchoud C, et al. Evaluation of renal grafts by pretransplant biopsy. Transplant Proc 1995;27:2470. 20. Liapis H, Gaut JP, Klein C, et  al. Banff histopathological consensus criteria for preimplantation kidney biopsies. Am J Transplant 2017;17(1):140–50. 21. Mohan S, Campenot E, Chiles MC, et al. Association between reperfusion renal allograft biopsy findings and transplant outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28(10):3109–17. Available online at: https:// 22. Gaber LW, Moore LW, Alloway RR, Amiri MH, Vera SR, Gaber AO. Glomerulosclerosis as a determinant of posttransplant function of older donor renal allografts. Transplantation 1995;60(4):334–9. 23. Randhawa PS, Minervini MI, Lombardero M, et  al. Biopsy of marginal donor kidneys: correlation of histologic findings with graft dysfunction. Transplantation 2000;69(7):1352–7. 24. Escofet X, Osman H, Griffiths DF, Woydag S, Adam Jurewicz W. The presence of glomerular sclerosis at time zero has a significant impact on function after cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation 2003;75(3):344–6.


25. Pokorna E, Vitko S, Chadimova M, Schuck O, Ekberg H. Proportion of glomerulosclerosis in procurement wedge renal biopsy cannot alone discriminate for acceptance of marginal donors. Transplantation 2000;69(1):36–43. 26. Edwards EB, Posner MP, Maluf DG, Kauffman HM. Reasons for non-use of recovered kidneys: the effect of donor glomerulosclerosis and creatinine clearance on graft survival. Transplantation 2004;77(9):1411–5. 27. Wang HJ, Kjellstrand CM, Cockfield SM, Solez K. On the influence of sample size on the prognostic accuracy and reproducibility of renal transplant biopsy. Neph Dial Transplant 1998;13(1):165–72. 28. Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJ, et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Path Surg Path 2003;27(6):805–10. 29. Remuzzi G, Cravedi P, Perna A, et  al. Long-term outcome of renal transplantation from older donors. N Engl J Med 2006;354(4): 343–52. 30. Karpinski J, Lajoie G, Cattran D, et al. Outcome of kidney transplantation from high-risk donors is determined by both structure and function. Transplantation 1999;67(8):1162–7. 31. Taub HC, Greenstein SM, Lerner SE, Schechner R, Tellis VA. Reassessment of the value of post-vascularization biopsy performed at renal transplantation: the effects of arteriosclerosis. J Urol 1994;151(3):575–7. 32. McCall SJ, Tuttle-Newhall JE, Howell DN, Fields TA. Prognostic significance of microvascular thrombosis in donor kidney allograft biopsies. Transplantation 2003;75(11):1847–52. 33. Soares KC, Arend LJ, Lonze BE, et al. Successful renal transplantation of deceased donor kidneys with 100% glomerular fibrin thrombi and acute renal failure due to disseminated intravascular coagulation. Transplantation 2017;101(6):1134–8. 34. Sood P, Randhawa PS, Mehta R, Hariharan S, Tevar AD. Donor kidney microthrombi and outcomes of kidney transplant: a singlecenter experience. Clin Transplant 2015;29(5):434–8. 35. Batra RK, Heilman RL, Smith ML, et al. Rapid resolution of donorderived glomerular fibrin thrombi after deceased donor kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2016;16(3):1015–20. 36. Abouna GM, Al Adnani MS, Kremer GD, Kumar SA, Daddah SK, Kusma G. Reversal of diabetic nephropathy in human cadaveric kidneys after transplantation into non-diabetic recipients. Lancet 1983;2(1274):1274–6. 37. Ji S, Liu M, Chen J, et al. The fate of glomerular mesangial IgA deposition in the donated kidney after allograft transplantation. Clin Transplant 2004;18(5):536–40. 38. Nakazawa K, Shimojo H, Komiyama Y, et al. Preexisting membranous nephropathy in allograft kidney. Nephron 1999;81(1):76–80. 39. Lipkowitz GS, Madden RL, Kurbanov A, et al. Transplantation and 2-year follow-up of kidneys procured from a cadaver donor with a history of lupus nephritis. Transplantation 2000;69(6):1221–4. 40. Brunt EM, Kissane JM, Cole BR, Hanto DW. Transmission and resolution of type I membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis in recipients of cadaveric renal allografts. Transplantation 1988;46(4):595–8. 41. Williams GM, Hume DM, Huson Jr RP, Morris PJ, Kano K, Milgrom F. “Hyperacute” renal-homograft rejection in man. N Eng J Med 1968;279(611):611–5. 42. Kissmeyer-Nielsen F, Olsen S, Petersen VP, Fjeldborg O. Hyperacute rejection of kidney allografts, associated with pre-existing humoral antibodies against donor cells. Lancet 1966;2(7465):662–5. 43. Gaber LW, Gaber AO, Vera SR, Braxton F, Hathaway D. Successful reversal of hyperacute renal allograft rejection with the anti-CD3 monoclonal OKT3. Transplantation 1992;54(5):930–2. 44. Halloran PF, Wadgymar A, Ritchie S, Falk J, Solez K, Srinivasa NS. The significance of the anti-class I antibody response. I. Clinical and pathologic features of anti-class I-mediated rejection. Transplantation 1990;49(1):85–91. 45. Ahern AT, Artruc SB, DellaPelle P, et  al. Hyperacute rejection of HLA-AB-identical renal allografts associated with B lymphocyte and endothelial reactive antibodies. Transplantation 1982;33(1): 103–6. 46. Paul L, Class F, van Es L, Kalff M, de Graeff J. Accelerated rejection of a renal allograft associated with pretransplantation antibodies directed against donor antigens on endothelium and monocytes. N Engl J Med 1979;300(22):1258–9. 47. Sibley RK, Payne W. Morphologic findings in the renal allograft biopsy. Sem Nephrol 1985;5(4):294–306.


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

48. Lucas ZJ, Coplon N, Kempson R, Cohn RB. Early renal transplant failure associated with subliminal sensitization. Transplantation 1970;10:522–8. 49. Metzgar RS, Seigler HF, Ward FE, Rowlands DTJ. Immunological studies on elutes from human renal allografts. Transplantation 1972;13(131):131–7. 50. Colovai AI, Vasilescu ER, Foca-Rodi A, et al. Acute and hyperacute humoral rejection in kidney allograft recipients treated with antihuman thymocyte antibodies. Hum Immunol 2005;66(5):501–12. 51. Gaber LW, Gaber AO, Tolley EA, Hathaway DK. Prediction by postrevascularization biopsies of cadaveric kidney allografts of rejection, graft loss, and preservation nephropathy. Transplantation 1992;53(6):1219–25. 52. Fusaro F, Murer L, Busolo F, Rigamonti W, Zanon GF, Zacchello G. CMV and BKV ureteritis: which prognosis for the renal graft? J Nephrol 2003;16(4):591–4. 53. Kirk AD, Mannon RB, Kleiner DE, et  al. Results from a human renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating T-cell depletion with alemtuzumab combined with deoxyspergualin. Transplantation 2005;80(8):1051–9. 54. Almirall J, Campistol JM, Sole M, Andreu J, Revert L. Blood and graft eosinophilia as a rejection index in kidney transplant. Nephron 1993;65(2):304–9. 55. Nickeleit V, Vamvakas EC, Pascual M, Poletti BJ, Colvin RB. The prognostic significance of specific arterial lesions in acute renal allograft rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998;9:1301–8. 56. Meleg-Smith S, Gauthier PM. Abundance of interstitial eosinophils in renal allografts is associated with vascular rejection. Transplantation 2005;79(4):444–50. 57. Danilewicz M, Wagrowska-Danilewicz M. Immunohistochemical analysis of the interstitial mast cells in acute rejection of human renal allografts. Med Sci Monit 2004;10(5):BR151–6. 58. Charney DA, Nadasdy T, Lo AW, Racusen LC. Plasma cell-rich acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1999;68(6):791–7. 59. Aiello FB, Calabrese F, Rigotti P, et al. Acute rejection and graft survival in renal transplanted patients with viral diseases. Mod Path 2004;17(2):189–96. 60. Meehan SM, Domer P, Josephson M, et  al. The clinical and pathologic implications of plasmacytic infiltrates in percutaneous renal allograft biopsies. Hum Pathol 2001;32(2):205–15. 61. Kataoka K, Naomoto Y, Shiozaki S, Matsuno T, Sakagami K, Okumura OK. Infiltration of perforin-positive mononuclear cells into the rejected kidney allograft. Transplantation 1992;53(1):240–2. 62. Pascoe MD, Marshall SE, Welsh KI, Fulton LM, Hughes DA. Increased accuracy of renal allograft rejection diagnosis using combined perforin, granzyme B, and Fas ligand fine-needle aspiration immunocytology. Transplantation 2000;69(12):2547–53. 63. Akasaka Y, Ishikawa Y, Kato S, et  al. Induction of Fas-mediated apoptosis in a human renal epithelial cell line by interferon-gamma: involvement of Fas-mediated apoptosis in acute renal rejection. Mod Path 1998;11(11):1107–14. 64. Kummer J, Wever P, Kamp A, ten Berge I, Hack C, Weening J. Expression of granzyme A and B proteins by cytotoxic lymphocytes involved in acute renal allograft rejection. Kidney Int 1995;47:70–7. 65. Rowshani AT, Florquin S, Bemelman F, Kummer JA, Hack CE, Ten Berge IJ. Hyperexpression of the granzyme B inhibitor PI-9 in human renal allografts: a potential mechanism for stable renal function in patients with subclinical rejection. Kidney Int 2004;66(4):1417–22. 66. Mengel M, Mueller I, Behrend M, et al. Prognostic value of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes and CD40 in biopsies with early renal allograft rejection. Transpl Int 2004;17(6):293–300. 67. Meehan S, McCluskey R, Pascual M, Anderson P, Schlossman S, Colvin R. Cytotoxicity and apoptosis in human renal allografts: identification, distribution, and quantitation of cells with a cytotoxic granule protein GMP-17 (TIA-1) and cells with fragmented nuclear DNA. Lab Invest 1997;76:639–49. 68. Noronha IL, Hartley B, Cameron JS, Waldherr R. Detection of IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha message and protein in renal allograft biopsies. Transplantation 1993;56(4):1026–9. 69. Ito H, Kasagi N, Shomori K, Osaki M, Adachi H. Apoptosis in the human allografted kidney. Analysis by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated DUTP-botin nick end labeling. Transplantation 1995;60(8):794–8. 70. Noronha IL, Oliveira SG, Tavares TS, et al. Apoptosis in kidney and pancreas allograft biopsies. Transplantation 2005;79(9):1231–5.

71. August C, Schmid KW, Dietl KH, Heidenreich S. Prognostic value of lymphocyte apoptosis in acute rejection of renal allografts. Transplantation 1999;67(4):581–5. 72. Bishop GA, Hall BM, Duggin GG, Horvath JS, Sheil AG, Tiller DJ. Immunopathology of renal allograft rejection analyzed with monoclonal antibodies to mononuclear cell markers. ;29(708): 708–17. 73. Fuggle SV, McWhinnie DL, Morris PJ. Precise specificity of induced tubular HLA-class II antigens in renal allografts. Transplantation 1987;44(2):214–20. 74. Fuggle SV, McWhinnie DL, Chapman JR, Taylor HM, Morris PJ. Sequential analysis of HLA class II antigen expression in human renal allografts: Induction of tubular class II antigens and correlation with clinical parameters. Transplantation 1985;42:144–50. 75. Waltzer WC, Miller F, Arnold A, Anaise D, Rapaport FT. Immunohistologic analysis of human renal allograft dysfunction. Transplantation 1987;43(1):100–5. 76. Barrett M, Milton AD, Barrett J, et  al. Needle biopsy evaluation of class II major histocompatibility complex antigen expression for the differential diagnosis of cyclosporine nephrotoxicity from kidney graft rejection. Transplantation 1987;44:223–7. 77. Ozdemir BH, Aksoy PK, Haberal AN, Demirhan B, Haberal M. Relationship of HLA-DR expression to rejection and mononuclear cell infiltration in renal allograft biopsies. Renal Failure 2004;26(3):247–51. 78. Nickeleit V, Hirsch HH, Zeiler M, et al. BK-virus nephropathy in renal transplants-tubular necrosis, MHC-class II expression and rejection in a puzzling game. Neph Dial Transplant 2000;15(3):324–32. 79. Faull RJ, Russ GR. Tubular expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 during renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1989;48(2):226–30. 80. Fuggle SV, Sanderson JB, Gray DW, Richardson A, Morris PJ. Variation in expression of endothelial adhesion molecules in pretransplant and transplanted kidneys—correlation with intragraft events. Transplantation 1993;55(1):117–23. 81. Brockmeyer C, Ulbrecht M, Schendel DJ, et  al. Distribution of cell adhesion molecules (ICAM-1, VCAM-1, ELAM-1) in renal tissue during allograft rejection. Transplantation 1993;55(3):610–5. 82. Briscoe DM, Pober JSS, Harmon WE, Cotran RS. Expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 in human renal allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992;3(5):1180–5. 83. Niemann-Masanek U, Mueller A, Yard BA, Waldherr R, van der Woude FJ. B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD 86) expression in human tubular epithelial cells in vivo and in vitro. Nephron 2002;92(3):542–56. 84. Morel D, Normand E, Lemoine C, et al. Tumor necrosis factor alpha in human kidney transplant rejection—analysis by in situ hybridization. Transplantation 1993;55(4):773–7. 85. Wong WK, Robertson H, Carroll HP, Ali S, Kirby JA. Tubulitis in renal allograft rejection: role of transforming growth factor-beta and interleukin-15 in development and maintenance of CD103+ intraepithelial T cells. Transplantation 2003;75(4):505–14. 86. Ozdemir BH, Ozdemir FN, Haberal N, Emiroglu R, Demirhan B, Haberal M. Vascular endothelial growth factor expression and cyclosporine toxicity in renal allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 2005;5(4 Pt 1):766–74. 87. Alchi B, Nishi S, Kondo D, et  al. Osteopontin expression in acute renal allograft rejection. Kidney Int 2005;67(3):886–96. 88. Robertson H, Ali S, McDonnell BJ, Burt AD, Kirby JA. Chronic renal allograft dysfunction: the role of T cell-mediated tubular epithelial to mesenchymal cell transition. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15(2):390–7. 89. Kriz W, Kaissling B, Le Hir M. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in kidney fibrosis: fact or fantasy? J Clin Invest 2011;121(2):468–74. 90. Farris AB, Colvin RB. Renal interstitial fibrosis: mechanisms and evaluation. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2012;21(3):289–300. Available online at: 91. Tuazon TV, Schneeberger EE, Bhan AK, et al. Mononuclear cells in acute allograft glomerulopathy. Am J Path 1987;129(1):119–32. 92. Veronese F, Rotman S, Smith RN, et al. Pathological and clinical correlates of FOXP3(+) cells in renal allografts during acute rejection. Am J Transplant 2007; 7(4);914–22. 93. Robertson H, Wheeler J, Thompson V, Johnson JS, Kirby JA, Morley AR. In situ lymphoproliferation in renal transplant biopsies. Histochem Cell Biol 1995;104:331–4.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation 94. Kooijmans-Coutinho MF, Bruijn JA, Hermans J, et al. Evaluation by histology, immunohistology and PCR of protocollized renal biopsies 1 week post-transplant in relation to subsequent rejection episodes. Neph Dial Transplant 1995;10(6):847–54. 95. Andrews PA, Finn JE, Lloyd CM, Zhou W, Mathieson PW, Sacks SH. Expression and tissue localization of donor-specific complement C3 synthesized in human renal allografts. Europ J Immunol 1995;25(4):1087–93. 96. Pratt JR, Basheer SA, Sacks SH. Local synthesis of complement component C3 regulates acute renal transplant rejection. Nature Med 2002;8(6):582–7. 97. Strehlau J, Pavlakis M, Lipman M, et  al. Quantitative detection of immune activation transcripts as a diagnostic tool in kidney transplantation. Proc Nat Acad Sci 1997;94:695–700. 98. Sharma VK, Bologa RM, Li B, et  al. Molecular executors of cell death—differential intrarenal expression of Fas ligand, Fas, granzyme B, and perforin during acute and/or chronic rejection of human renal allografts. Transplantation 1996;62(12):1860–6. 99. Lipman ML, Stevens AC, Strom TB. Heightened intragraft CTL gene expression in acutely rejecting renal allografts. J Immunol 1994;152(10):5120–7. 100. Strehlau J, Pavlakis M, Lipman M, Maslinski W, Shapiro M, Strom TB. The intragraft gene activation of markers reflecting T-cell-activation and -cytotoxicity analyzed by quantitative RT-PCR in renal transplantation. Clin Nephrol 1996;46(1):30–3. 101. Hoffmann SC, Hale DA, Kleiner DE, et  al. Functionally significant renal allograft rejection is defined by transcriptional criteria. Am J Transplant 2005;5(3):573–81. 102. Suthanthiran M. Molecular analyses of human renal allografts: differential intragraft gene expression during rejection. Kidney Int 1997;58:S15–21. 103. Desvaux D, Schwarzinger M, Pastural M, et  al. Molecular diagnosis of renal-allograft rejection: correlation with histopathologic evaluation and antirejection-therapy resistance. Transplantation 2004;78(5):647–53. 104. Einecke G, Melk A, Ramassar V, et al. Expression of CTL associated transcripts precedes the development of tubulitis in T-cell mediated kidney graft rejection. Am J Transplant 2005;5(8):1827–36. 105. Einecke G, Fairhead T, Hidalgo LG, et  al. Tubulitis and epithelial cell alterations in mouse kidney transplant rejection are independent of CD103, perforin or granzymes A/B. Am J Transplant 2006;6(9):2109–20. 106. Nast CC, Zuo XJ, Prehn J, Danovitch GM, Wilkinson A, Jordan SC. Gamma-interferon gene expression in human renal allograft fineneedle aspirates. Transplantation 1994;57(4):498–502. 107. Schroeder TJ, Weiss MA, Smith RD, Stephens GW, First MR. The efficacy of OKT3 in vascular rejection. Transplantation 1991;51(2):312–5. 108. Kooijmans-Coutinho MF, Hermans J, Schrama E, et  al. Interstitial rejection, vascular rejection, and diffuse thrombosis of renal allografts: predisposing factors, histology, immunohistochemistry, and relation to outcome. Transplantation 1996;61(9):1338–44. 109. Bates WD, Davies DR, Welsh K, Gray DW, Fuggle SV, Morris PJ. An evaluation of the Banff classification of early renal allograft biopsies and correlation with outcome. Neph Dial Transplant 1999;14(10):2364–9. 110. Bellamy CO, Randhawa PS. Arteriolitis in renal transplant biopsies is associated with poor graft outcome. Histopathology 2000;36(6):488–92. 111. Sis B, Bagnasco SM, Cornell LD, et al. Isolated endarteritis and kidney transplant survival: a multicenter collaborative study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26(5):1216–27. 112. Alpers CE, Gordon D, Gown AM. Immunophenotype of vascular rejection in renal transplants. Mod Path 1990;3(2):198–203. 113. Woywodt A, Schroeder M, Gwinner W, et  al. Elevated numbers of circulating endothelial cells in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003;76(1):1–4. 114. Watschinger B, Vychytil A, Attar M, et  al. Pattern of endothelin immunostaining during rejection episodes after kidney transplantation. Clin Nephrol 1994;41(2):86–93. 115. Trpkov K, Campbell P, Pazderka F, Cockfield S, Solez K, Halloran PF. Pathologic features of acute renal allograft rejection associated with donor-specific antibody. Analysis using the Banff grading schema. Transplantation 1996;61(11):1586–92.


116. Richardson WP, Colvin RB, Cheeseman SH, et  al. Glomerulopathy associated with cytomegalovirus viremia in renal allografts. N Engl J Med 1981;305(2):57–63. 117. Messias NC, Eustace JA, Zachary AA, Tucker PC, Charney D, Racusen LC. Cohort study of the prognostic significance of acute transplant glomerulitis in acutely rejecting renal allografts. Transplantation 2001;72(4):655–60. 118. Hiki Y, Leong AY, Mathew TH, Seymour AE, Pascoe V, Woodroofe AJ. Typing of intraglomerular mononuclear cells associated with transplant glomerular rejection. Clin Nephrol 1986;26(5): 244–9. 119. Cosio FG, Sedmak DD, Henry ML, et al. The high prevalence of severe early posttransplant renal allograft pathology in hepatitis C positive recipients. Transplantation 1996;62(8):1054–9. 120. Girlanda R, Kleiner DE, Duan Z, et al. Monocyte infiltration and kidney allograft dysfunction during acute rejection. Am J Transplant 2008;8(3):600–7. 121. Kirk AD, Hale DA, Mannon RB, et al. Results from a human renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating the humanized CD52-specific monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (CAMPATH-1H). Transplantation 2003;76(1):120–9. 122. Kawai T, Cosimi AB, Spitzer TR, et al. HLA-mismatched renal transplantation without maintenance immunosuppression. N Engl J Med 2008;358(4):353–61. 123. Farris AB, Taheri D, Kawai T, et al. Acute renal endothelial injury during marrow recovery in a cohort of combined kidney and bone marrow allografts. Am J Transplant 2011;11(7):1464–77. 124. Leventhal J, Abecassis M, Miller J, et  al. Chimerism and tolerance without GVHD or engraftment syndrome in HLA-mismatched combined kidney and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Sci Translational Med 2012;4(124):124–8. 125. Kawai T, Sachs DH, Sprangers B, et al. Long-term results in recipients of combined HLA-mismatched kidney and bone marrow transplantation without maintenance immunosuppression. Am J Transplant 2014;14(7):1599–611. 126. Neild GH, Taube DH, Hartley RB, et al. Morphological differentiation between rejection and cyclosporin nephrotoxicity in renal allografts. J Clin Path 1986;39(2):152–9. 127. Sibley RK, Rynasiewicz J, Ferguson RM, et  al. Morphology of cyclosporine nephrotoxicity and acute rejection in patients immunosuppressed with cyclosporine and prednisone. Surgery 1983;94(2):225–34. 128. Taube DH, Neild GH, Williams DG, et  al. Differentiation between allograft rejection and cyclosporin nephrotoxicity in renal transplant recipients. Lancet 1985;2(171):171–4. 129. Marcussen N, Lai R, Olsen TS, Solez K. Morphometric and immunohistochemical investigation of renal biopsies from patients with transplant ATN, native ATN, or acute graft rejection. Transplant Proc 1996;28(1):470–6. 130. Curtis JJ, Julian BA, Sanders CE, Herrera GA, Gaston RS. Dilemmas in renal transplantation: when the clinical course and histological findings differ. Am J Kidney Dis 1996;27(3):435–40. 131. Colvin RB, Nickeleit V. Renal transplant pathology. In: Jennette JC, Olson JL, Schwartz MM, Silva FG, editors. Heptinstall’s Pathology of the Kidney. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. p. 1347–490. 132. Khanduja S, Ghoshal U, Ghoshal UC. Phylogenetic analysis of genetically distinct Enterocytozoon bieneusi infecting renal transplant recipients. Acta Parasitol 2017;62(1):63–8. 133. Kicia M, Wesolowska M, Kopacz Z, et al. Prevalence and molecular characteristics of urinary and intestinal microsporidia infections in renal transplant recipients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016;22(5):462. e465–e469. 134. Hocevar SN, Paddock CD, Spak CW, et al. Microsporidiosis acquired through solid organ transplantation: a public health investigation. Ann Intern Med 2014;160(4):213–20. 135. Haas M, Loupy A, Lefaucheur C, et  al. The Banff.2017 kidney meeting report: revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T cellmediated rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and prospects for integrative endpoints for next-generation clinical trials. Am J Transplant 2018;18(2):293–307. Available online at: https://doi. org/10.1111/ajt.14625. 136. Halloran PF, Schlaut J, Solez K, Srinivasa NS. The significance of the anti-class I antibody response. II. Clinical and pathologic features of


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

renal transplants with anti-class I-like antibody. Transplantation 1992;53(3):550–5. 137. Scornik JC, LeFor WM, Cicciarelli JC, et al. Hyperacute and acute kidney graft rejection due to antibodies against B cells. Transplantation 1992;54(1):61–4. 138. Fidler ME, Gloor JM, Lager DJ, et al. Histologic findings of antibodymediated rejection in ABO blood-group-incompatible living-donor kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004;4(1):101–7. 139. Yard B, Spruyt-Gerritse M, Claas F, et  al. The clinical significance of allospecific antibodies against endothelial cells detected with an antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity assay for vascular rejection and graft loss after renal transplantation. Transplantation 1993;55(6):1287–93. 140. Collins AB, Chicano S, Cornell LD, et al. Putative antibody-mediated rejection with C4d deposition in HLA-identical, ABO compatible renal allografts. Transplantation Proc 2006;38(10):3427–9. 141. Lorenz M, Regele H, Schillinger M, et al. Risk factors for capillary C4d deposition in kidney allografts: evaluation of a large study cohort. Transplantation 2004;78(3):447–52. 142. Mauiyyedi S, Colvin RB. Humoral rejection in kidney transplantation: new concepts in diagnosis and treatment. Curr Op Nephrol Hypertens 2002;11(6):609–18. 143. Nickeleit V, Mihatsch MJ. Kidney transplants, antibodies and rejection: is C4d a magic marker? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18(11):2232–9. 144. Rotman S, Collins AB, Colvin RB. C4d deposition in allografts: current concepts and interpretation. Transplant Rev 2005;19:65–77. 145. Feucht HE, Felber E, Gokel MJ, et al. Vascular deposition of complement-split products in kidney allografts with cell-mediated rejection. Clin Experiment Immunol 1991;86(3):464–70. 146. Crespo M, Pascual M, Tolkoff-Rubin N, et al. Acute humoral rejection in renal allograft recipients: I. Incidence, serology and clinical characteristics. Transplantation 2001;71(5):652–8. 147. Mauiyyedi S, Crespo M, Collins AB, et al. Acute humoral rejection in kidney transplantation: II. Morphology, immunopathology, and pathologic classification. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(3):779–87. 148. Racusen LC, Colvin RB, Solez K, et al. Antibody-mediated rejection criteria - an addition to the Banff 97 classification of renal allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 2003;3(6):708–14. 149. Burns JM, Cornell LD, Perry DK, et al. Alloantibody levels and acute humoral rejection early after positive crossmatch kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2008;8(12):2684–94. 150. Sellares J, de Freitas DG, Mengel M, et  al. Understanding the causes of kidney transplant failure: the dominant role of antibody-mediated rejection and nonadherence. Am J Transplant 2012;12(2):388–99. 151. Lerut E, Kuypers DR, Verbeken E, et al. Acute rejection in non-compliant renal allograft recipients: a distinct morphology. Clin Transplant 2007;21(3):344–51. 152. Takemoto SK, Zeevi A, Feng S, et al. National conference to assess antibody-mediated rejection in solid organ transplantation. Am J Transplant 2004;4(7):1033–41. 153. Cecka JM. Current methodologies for detecting sensitization to HLA antigens. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2011;16(4):398–403. 154. Gebel HM, Bray RA. The evolution and clinical impact of human leukocyte antigen technology. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2010;19(6):598–602. 155. Cosio FG, Lager DJ, Lorenz EC, Amer H, Gloor JM, Stegall MD. Significance and implications of capillaritis during acute rejection of kidney allografts. Transplantation 2010;89(9):1088–94. 156. Loupy A, Suberbielle-Boissel C, Hill GS, et  al. Outcome of subclinical antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients with preformed donor-specific antibodies. Am J Transplant 2009;9(11):2561–70. 157. Loupy A, Haas M, Solez K, et  al. The Banff 2015 kidney meeting report: current challenges in rejection classification and prospects for adopting molecular pathology. Am J Transplant 2017;17(1): 28–41. 158. Herman J, Lerut E, Van Damme-Lombaerts R, Emonds MP, Van Damme B. Capillary deposition of complement C4d and C3d in pediatric renal allograft biopsies. Transplantation 2005;79(10): 1435–40. 159. Regele H, Exner M, Watschinger B, et al. Endothelial C4d deposition is associated with inferior kidney allograft outcome independently of cellular rejection. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001;16(10):2058–66.

160. Magil AB, Tinckam K. Monocytes and peritubular capillary C4d deposition in acute renal allograft rejection. Kidney Int 2003;63(5):1888–93. 161. Nickeleit V, Zeiler M, Gudat F, Thiel G, Mihatsch MJ. Detection of the complement degradation product C4d in renal allografts: diagnostic and therapeutic implications. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(1): 242–51. 162. Lobo PI, Spencer CE, Stevenson WC, Pruett TL. Evidence demonstrating poor kidney graft survival when acute rejections are associated with IgG donor-specific lymphocytotoxin. Transplantation 1995;59:357–60. 163. Poduval RD, Kadambi PV, Josephson MA, et  al. Implications of immunohistochemical detection of C4d along peritubular capillaries in late acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 2005;79(2):228–35. 164. Desvaux D, Le Gouvello S, Pastural M, et  al. Acute renal allograft rejections with major interstitial oedema and plasma cell-rich infiltrates: high {gamma}-interferon expression and poor clinical outcome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19(4):933–9. 165. Dragun D, Muller DN, Brasen JH, et al. Angiotensin II type 1-receptor activating antibodies in renal-allograft rejection. N Engl J Med 2005;352(6):558–69. 166. Magil AB, Tinckam KJ. Focal peritubular capillary C4d deposition in acute rejection. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21(5):1382–8. 167. Haas M, Ratner LE, Montgomery RA. C4d staining of perioperative renal transplant biopsies. Transplantation 2002;74(5):711–7. 168. Sund S, Hovig T, Reisaeter AV, Scott H, Bentdal O, Mollnes TE. Complement activation in early protocol kidney graft biopsies after livingdonor transplantation. Transplantation 2003;75(8):1204–13. 169. Koo DD, Roberts IS, Quiroga I, et  al. C4d deposition in early renal allograft protocol biopsies. Transplantation 2004;78(3): 398–403. 170. Mauiyyedi S, Crespo M, Collins AB, et  al. Acute humoral rejection in kidney transplantation: II. Morphology, immunopathology, and pathologic classification. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(3):779–87. 171. Bohmig GA, Exner M, Habicht A, et al. Capillary C4d deposition in kidney allografts: a specific marker of alloantibody-dependent graft injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(4):1091–9. 172. Haas M, Rahman MH, Racusen LC, et al. C4d and C3d staining in biopsies of ABO- and HLA-incompatible renal allografts: correlation with histologic findings. Am J Transplant 2006;6(8):1829–40. 173. Martin L, Guignier F, Mousson C, Rageot D, Justrabo E, Rifle G. Detection of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies with flow cytometry in eluates and sera from renal transplant recipients with chronic allograft nephropathy. Transplantation 2003;76(2):395–400. 174. Grafft CA, Cornell LD, Gloor JM, et al. Antibody-mediated rejection following transplantation from an HLA-identical sibling. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25(1):307–10. 175. Konvalinka A, Tinckam K. Utility of HLA antibody testing in kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26(7):1489–502. 176. Jackson AM, Sigdel TK, Delville M, et  al. Endothelial cell antibodies associated with novel targets and increased rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26(5):1161–71. 177. Duquesnoy RJ, Kamoun M, Baxter-Lowe LA, et al. Should HLA mismatch acceptability for sensitized transplant candidates be determined at the high-resolution rather than the antigen level? Am J Transplant 2015;15(4):923–30. 178. Duquesnoy RJ, Gebel HM, Woodle ES, et  al. High-resolution HLA typing for sensitized patients: advances in medicine and science require us to challenge existing paradigms. Am J Transplant 2015;15(10):2780–1. 179. Cecka JM, Reed EF, Zachary AA. HLA high-resolution typing for sensitized patients: a solution in search of a problem? Am J Transplant 2015;15(4):855–6. 180. Wahrmann M, Exner M, Schillinger M, et  al. Pivotal role of complement-fixing HLA alloantibodies in presensitized kidney allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2006;6(5 Pt 1):1033–41. 181. Nadasdy GM, Bott C, Cowden D, Pelletier R, Ferguson R, Nadasdy T. Comparative study for the detection of peritubular capillary C4d deposition in human renal allografts using different methodologies. Hum Pathol 2005;36(11):1178–85. 182. Kuypers DR, Lerut E, Evenepoel P, Maes B, Vanrenterghem Y, Van Damme B. C3d deposition in peritubular capillaries indicates a variant of acute renal allograft rejection characterized by a worse clinical outcome. Transplantation 2003;76(1):102–8.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation 183. Nishi S, Imai N, Ito Y, et al. Pathological study on the relationship between C4d, CD59 and C5b-9 in acute renal allograft rejection. Clin Transplant 2004;18(Suppl. 11):18–23. 184. Jabs WJ, Logering BA, Gerke P, et  al. The kidney as a second site of human C-reactive protein formation in  vivo. Eur J Immunol 2003;33(1):152–61. 185. Imai N, Nishi S, Alchi B, et  al. Immunohistochemical evidence of activated lectin pathway in kidney allografts with peritubular capillary C4d deposition. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21(9):2589–95. 186. Hirohashi T, Chase CM, Della Pelle P, et  al. A novel pathway of chronic allograft rejection mediated by NK cells and alloantibody. Am J Transplant 2012;12(2):313–21. 187. Akiyoshi T, Hirohashi T, Alessandrini A, et  al. Role of complement and NK cells in antibody mediated rejection. Hum Immunol 2012;73(12):1226–32. 188. Hidalgo LG, Sis B, Sellares J, et al. NK cell transcripts and NK cells in kidney biopsies from patients with donor-specific antibodies: evidence for NK cell involvement in antibody-mediated rejection. Am J Transplant 2010;10(8):1812–22. 189. Hirohashi T, Chase CM, DellaPelle P, et al. Depletion of T regulatory cells promotes natural killer cell-mediated cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Transplantation 2014;98(8):828–34. 190. Haas M, Sis B, Racusen LC, et al. Banff 2013 meeting report: inclusion of c4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection and antibody-associated arterial lesions. Am J Transplant 2014;14(2):272–83. 191. Haas M, Mirocha J. Early ultrastructural changes in renal allografts: correlation with antibody-mediated rejection and transplant glomerulopathy. Am J Transplant 2011;11(10):2123–31. 192. Haas M. C4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection in renal allografts: evidence for its existence and effect on graft survival. Clin Nephrol 2011;75(4):271–8. 193. Haas M. Pathologic features of antibody-mediated rejection in renal allografts: an expanding spectrum. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2012;21(3):264–71. 194. Loupy A, Suberbielle-Boissel C, Hill GS, et  al. Outcome of subclinical antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients with preformed donor-specific antibodies. Am J Transplant 2009;9(11):2561–70. 195. Sis B, Jhangri GS, Bunnag S, Allanach K, Kaplan B, Halloran PF. Endothelial gene expression in kidney transplants with alloantibody indicates antibody-mediated damage despite lack of C4d staining. Am J Transplant 2009;9(10):2312–23. 196. Stegall MD, Diwan T, Raghavaiah S, et  al. Terminal complement inhibition decreases antibody-mediated rejection in sensitized renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2011;11(11):2405–13. 197. Thurman JM, Lucia MS, Ljubanovic D, Holers VM. Acute tubular necrosis is characterized by activation of the alternative pathway of complement. Kidney Int 2005;67(2):524–30. 198. Artz MA, Steenbergen EJ, Hoitsma AJ, Monnens LA, Wetzels JF. Renal transplantation in patients with hemolytic uremic syndrome: high rate of recurrence and increased incidence of acute rejections. Transplantation 2003;76(5):821–6. 199. Lerut E, Kuypers D, Van Damme B. C4d deposition in the peritubular capillaries of native renal biopsies. Histopathology 2005;47(4):430–2. 200. Sis B, Mengel M, Haas M, et al. Banff ‘09 meeting report: antibody mediated graft deterioration and implementation of Banff Working Groups. Am J Transplant 2010;10(3):464–71. Available online at: 201. Colvin RB, Chang A, Farris AB, et al. Diagnostic Pathology: Kidney Diseases. Salt Lake City, UT: Amirsys; 2011. 202. Takahashi K. Recent findings in ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation: classification and therapeutic strategy for acute antibody-mediated rejection due to ABO-blood-group-related antigens during the critical period preceding the establishment of accommodation. Clin Experiment Nephrol 2007;11(2):128–41. 203. Velankar MM, Kini AR. Ocular involvement by T-cell post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder of cutaneous origin. Pathology 2007;39(3):369–71. 204. Bentall A, Cornell LD, Gloor JM, et  al. Five-year outcomes in living donor kidney transplants with a positive crossmatch. Am J Transplant 2013;13(1):76–85. Available online at: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04291.x. 205. Bentall A, Tyan DB, Sequeira F, et  al. Antibody-mediated rejection despite inhibition of terminal complement. Transpl Int 2014;27(12):1235–43.


206. Solez K. History of the Banff classification of allograft pathology as it approaches its. 20th year. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2010;15(1):49–51. 207. Racusen LC, Solez K, Colvin RB, et al. The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 1999;55(2):713–23. 208. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, et al. Banff ‘05 Meeting Report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy (‘CAN’). Am J Transplant 2007;7(3):518–26. 209. Solez K, Colvin RB, Racusen LC, et  al. Banff ‘05 meeting report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy (‘CAN’). Am J Transplant 2007;7(3): 518–26. 210. Herzenberg AM, Gill JS, Djurdjev O, Magil AB. C4d deposition in acute rejection: an independent long-term prognostic factor. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(1):234–41. 211. Saad R, Gritsch HA, Shapiro R, et  al. Clinical significance of renal allograft biopsies with “borderline changes,” as defined in the Banff Schema. Transplantation 1997;64(7):992–5. 212. Schweitzer EJ, Drachenberg CB, Anderson L. Significance of the Banff borderline biopsy. Am J Kid Dis 1996;28:585–91. 213. Meehan SM, Siegel CT, Aronson AJ, et  al. The relationship of untreated borderline infiltrates by the Banff criteria to acute rejection in renal allograft biopsies. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10(8): 1806–14. 214. Gough J, Rush D, Jeffery J, et al. Reproducibility of the Banff schema in reporting protocol biopsies of stable renal allografts. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002;17(6):1081–4. 215. Veronese FV, Manfro RC, Roman FR, et  al. Reproducibility of the Banff classification in subclinical kidney transplant rejection. Clin Transplant 2005;19(4):518–21. 216. Terasaki PI, Ozawa M. Predictive value of HLA antibodies and serum creatinine in chronic rejection: results of a 2-year prospective trial. Transplantation 2005;80(9):1194–7. 217. Hourmant M, Cesbron-Gautier A, Terasaki PI, et  al. Frequency and clinical implications of development of donor-specific and nondonor-specific HLA antibodies after kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16(9):2804–12. 218. Regele H, Bohmig GA, Habicht A, et al. Capillary deposition of complement split product C4d in renal allografts is associated with basement membrane injury in peritubular and glomerular capillaries: a contribution of humoral immunity to chronic allograft rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13(9):2371–80. 219. Gloor JM, Winters JL, Cornell LD, et al. Baseline donor-specific antibody levels and outcomes in positive crossmatch kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2010;10(3):582–9. 220. Gloor JM, Sethi S, Stegall MD, et  al. Transplant glomerulopathy: subclinical incidence and association with alloantibody. Am J Transplant 2007;7(9):2124–32. 221. Haas M, Montgomery RA, Segev DL, et  al. Subclinical acute antibody-mediated rejection in positive crossmatch renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2007;7(3):576–85. 222. Wiebe C, Gibson IW, Blydt-Hansen TD, et al. Evolution and clinical pathologic correlations of de novo donor-specific HLA antibody post kidney transplant. Am J Transplant 2012;12(5):1157–67. 223. Ivanyi B, Fahmy H, Brown H, Szenohradszky P, Halloran PF, Solez K. Peritubular capillaries in chronic renal allograft rejection: a quantitative ultrastructural study. Hum Pathol 2000;31(9):1129–38. 224. Liapis G, Singh HK, Derebail VK, Gasim AM, Kozlowski T, Nickeleit V. Diagnostic significance of peritubular capillary basement membrane multilaminations in kidney allografts: old concepts revisited. Transplantation 2012;94(6):620–9. 225. Baid-Agrawal S, Farris 3rd AB, Pascual M, et al. Overlapping pathways to transplant glomerulopathy: chronic humoral rejection, hepatitis C infection, and thrombotic microangiopathy. Kidney Int 2011;80(8):879–85. 226. Smith RN, Kawai T, Boskovic S, et  al. Chronic antibody mediated rejection of renal allografts: pathological, serological and immunologic features in nonhuman primates. Am J Transplant 2006;6(8):1790–8. 227. Adam BA, Smith RN, Rosales IA, et  al. Chronic antibody-mediated rejection in nonhuman primate renal allografts: validation of human histological and molecular phenotypes. Am J Transplant 2017;17(11):2841–50. Available online at: https://doi. org/10.1111/ajt.14327.


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

228. Uehara S, Chase CM, Cornell LD, Madsen JC, Russell PS, Colvin RB. Chronic cardiac transplant arteriopathy in mice: relationship of alloantibody, C4d deposition and neointimal fibrosis. Am J Transplant 2007;7(1):57–65. 229. Cosio FG, Grande JP, Wadei H, Larson TS, Griffin MD, Stegall MD. Predicting subsequent decline in kidney allograft function from early surveillance biopsies. Am J Transplant 2005;5(10):2464–72. 230. Habib R, Broyer M. Clinical significance of allograft glomerulopathy. Kidney Int 1993;43:S95–8. 231. Busch GJ, Galvanek EG, Reynolds ES. Human renal allografts: analysis of lesions in long-term survivors. Human Pathol 1971;2(253):253–98. 232. Hsu HC, Suzuki Y, Churg J, Grishman E. Ultrastructure of transplant glomerulopathy. Histopathology 1980;4(4):351–67. 233. Porter KA, Dossetor JB, Marchioro TL, Peart WS, Rendall JST, Terasaki PI. Human renal transplants. I. Glomerular changes. Lab Invest 1967;16(153):153–81. 234. Colvin RB. Renal transplant pathology. In: Jennette JC, Olson JL, Schwartz MM, Silva FG, editors. Heptinstall’s Pathology of the Kidney. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 1409–540. 235. Sijpkens YW, Joosten SA, Wong MC, et al. Immunologic risk factors and glomerular C4d deposits in chronic transplant glomerulopathy. Kidney Int 2004;65(6):2409–18. 236. Glassock RJ, Feldman D, Reynolds ES, Dammin GJ, Merrill JP. Human renal isografts: a clinical and pathologic analysis. Medicine 1968;47:411–24. 237. Olsen S, Bohman SO, Petersen VP. Ultrastructure of the glomerular basement membrane in long term renal allografts with transplant glomerular disease. Laboratory Investigation 1974;30(176):176– 89. 238. Porter KA, Andres GA, Calder MW, Dossetor JB, Hsu KC, Rendall JM, et al. Human renal transplants. II. Immunofluorescence and immunoferritin studies. Lab Invest 1968;18(159):159–75. 239. Kieran N, Wang X, Perkins J, et al. Combination of peritubular C4d and transplant glomerulopathy predicts late renal allograft failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20(10):2260–8. 240. Bishop GA, Waugh JA, Landers DV, Krensky AM, Hall BM. Microvascular destruction in renal transplant rejection. Transplantation 1989;48(3):408–14. 241. Ishii Y, Sawada T, Kubota K, Fuchinoue S, Teraoka S, Shimizu A. Injury and progressive loss of peritubular capillaries in the development of chronic allograft nephropathy. Kidney Int 2005;67(1):321– 32. 242. Mauiyyedi S, Pelle PD, Saidman S, et al. Chronic humoral rejection: identification of antibody-mediated chronic renal allograft rejection by C4d deposits in peritubular capillaries. J Am Soc Nephrol 2001;12(3):574–82. 243. Lerut E, Naesens M, Kuypers DR, Vanrenterghem Y, Van Damme B. Subclinical peritubular capillaritis at 3 months is associated with chronic rejection at 1 year. Transplantation 2007;83(11):1416– 22. 244. Monga G, Mazzucco G, Messina M, Motta M, Quaranta S, Novara R. Intertubular capillary changes in kidney allografts: a morphologic investigation on 61 renal specimens. Mod Path 1992;5(2):125–30. 245. Mazzucco G, Motta M, Segoloni G, Monga G. Intertubular capillary changes in the cortex and medulla of transplanted kidneys and their relationship with transplant glomerulopathy: an ultrastructural study of 12 transplantectomies. Ultrastructural Pathol 1994;18(6):533–7. 246. Colvin RB, Dvorak AM, Dvorak HF. Mast cells in the cortical tubular epithelium and interstitium in human renal disease. Hum Pathol 1974;5(3):315–26. 247. Colvin RB, Dvorak HF. Basophils and mast cells in renal allograft rejection. Lancet 1974;1:212–4. 248. Desvaux D, Le Gouvello S, Pastural M, et  al. Acute renal allograft rejections with major interstitial oedema and plasma cell-rich infiltrates: high gamma-interferon expression and poor clinical outcome. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19(4):933–9. 249. Hill GS, Nochy D, Bruneval P, et al. Donor-specific antibodies accelerate arteriosclerosis after kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2011;22(5):975–83. 250. Jeannet M, Pinn VW, Flax MH, Winn HJ, Russell PS. Humoral antibodies in renal allotransplantation in man. N Engl J Med 1970;282(111):111–7.

251. Davenport A, Younie ME, Parsons JE, Klouda PT. Development of cytotoxic antibodies following renal allograft transplantation is associated with reduced graft survival due to chronic vascular rejection. Neph Dial Transplant 1994;9(9):1315–9. 252. Hill GS, Nochy D, Loupy A. Accelerated arteriosclerosis: a form of transplant arteriopathy. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2010;15(1):11–5. 253. Gago M, Cornell LD, Kremers WK, Stegall MD, Cosio FG. Kidney allograft inflammation and fibrosis, causes and consequences. Am J Transplant 2012;12(5):1199–207. 254. Burke BA, Chavers BM, Gillingham KJ, et al. Chronic renal allograft rejection in the first 6 months posttransplant. Transplantation 1995;60(12):1413–7. 255. Colvin R, Chase C, Winn H, Russell P. Chronic allograft arteriopathy: insights from experimental models. In: Orosz C, editor. Transplant Vascular Sclerosis. Austin, TX: R.G. Landes Biomedical Publishers; 1995. p. 7–34. 256. Salomon RN, Hughes CC, Schoen FJ, Payne DD, Pober JS, Libby P. Human coronary transplantation-associated arteriosclerosis: evidence for a chronic immune reaction to activated graft endothelial cells. Am J Path 1991;138(4):791–8. 257. Oguma S, Banner B, Zerbe T, Starzl T, Demetris AJ. Participation of dendritic cells in vascular lesions of chronic rejection of human allografts. Lancet 1988;2:933–6. 258. Gouldesbrough DR, Axelsen RA. Arterial endothelialitis in chronic renal allograft rejection: a histopathological and immunocytochemical study. Neph Dial Transplant 1994;9(1):35–40. 259. Fox WM, Hameed A, Hutchins GM, et al. Perforin expression localizing cytotoxic lymphocytes in the intimas of coronary arteries with transplant-related accelerated arteriosclerosis. Hum Pathol 1993;24(5):477–82. 260. Russell PS, Chase CM, Winn HJ, Colvin RB. Coronary atherosclerosis in transplanted mouse hearts. I. Time course and immunogenetic and immunopathological considerations. Am J Path 1994;144(2):260–74. 261. McKenzie I, Whittingham S. Deposits of immunoglobulin and fibrin in human renal allografted kidneys. Lancet 1968;2(1313):1313–5. 262. Petersen VP, Olsen TS, Kissmeyer NF, et  al. Late failure of human renal transplants: an analysis of transplant disease and graft failure among 125 recipients surviving for one to eight years. Medicine 1975;54(45):45–71. 263. Andres GA, Accinni L, Hsu KC, et al. Human renal transplants: III. Immunopathologic studies. Lab Invest 1970;22:588–95. 264. Russell PS, Chase CM, Colvin RB. Coronary atherosclerosis in transplanted mouse hearts. IV. Effects of treatment with monoclonal antibodies to intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and leukocyte function-associated antigen-1. Transplantation 1995;60(7):724–9. 265. McLaren AJ, Marshall SE, Haldar NA, et  al. Adhesion molecule polymorphisms in chronic renal allograft failure. Kidney Int 1999;55(5):1977–82. 266. Sedmak D, Sharma H, Czajka C, Ferguson R. Recipient endothelialization of renal allografts. An immunohistochemical study utilitizing blood group antigens. Transplantation 1988;46:907–10. 267. Hruban RH, Long PP, Perlman EJ, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization for the Y-chromosome can be used to detect cells of recipient origin in allografted hearts following cardiac transplantation. Am J Path 1993;142(4):975–80. 268. Kennedy LJ, Weissman IL. Dual origin of intimal cells in cardiac allograft arteriosclerosis. N Engl J Med 1971;285:884–8. 269. Sacchi G, Bertalot G, Cancarini C, Cristinelli L, Tonini G, Cannella G. Atheromatosis and double media: uncommon vascular lesions of renal allografts. Pathologica 1993;85(1096):183–94. 270. Howie AJ, Bryan RL, Gunson BK. Arteries and veins formed within renal vessels: a previously neglected observation. Virchows Arch A, Path Anat Histopathol. 1992;420(4):301–4. 271. Porter KA. Renal transplantation. In: Heptinstall RH, editor. The pathology of the kidney. 4th ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1990. p. 1799–933. 272. Gould VE, Martinez LV, Virtanen I, Sahlin KM, Schwartz MM. Differential distribution of tenascin and cellular fibronectins in acute and chronic renal allograft rejection. Lab Invest 1992;67(1):71–9. 273. Colvin RB. Pathology of renal allografts. In: Colvin RB, Bhan AK, McCluskey RT, editors. Diagnostic immunopathology. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1995. p. 329–66.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation 274. McManus BM, Malcom G, Kendall TJ, et  al. Prominence of coronary arterial wall lipids in human heart allografts: implications for pathogenesis of allograft arteriopathy. Am J Path 1995;147(2): 293–308. 275. Alpers CE, Davis CL, Barr D, Marsh CL, Hudkins KL. Identification of platelet-derived growth factor A and B chains in human renal vascular rejection. Am J Path 1996;148(2):439–51. 276. Fellström B, Klareskog L, Heldin CH, et  al. Platelet-derived growth factor receptors in the kidney—upregulated expression in inflammation. Kidney Int 1989;36(6):1099–102. 277. Kerby JD, Verran DJ, Luo KL, et al. Immunolocalization of FGF-1 and receptors in glomerular lesions associated with chronic human renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1996;62(2):190–200. 278. Noronha IL, Eberlein-Gonska M, Hartley B, Stephens S, Cameron JS, Waldherr R. In situ expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interferon-gamma, and interleukin-2 receptors in renal allograft biopsies. Transplantation 1992;54:1017–24. 279. Wieczorek G, Bigaud M, Menninger K, et al. Acute and chronic vascular rejection in non-human primate kidney tranplantation. Am J Transplant 2006;6(6):1285–96. 280. Cramer DV, Qian SQ, Harnaha J, et al. Cardiac transplantation in the rat. I. The effect of histocompatibility differences on graft arteriosclerosis. Transplantation 1989;47:414–9. 281. Adams DH, Tilney NL, Collins JJJ, Karnovsky MJ. Experimental graft arteriosclerosis. I. The Lewis-to-F-344 allograft model. Transplantation 1992;53(5):1115–9. 282. Russell PS, Chase CM, Colvin RB. Alloantibody- and T cell-mediated immunity in the pathogenesis of transplant arteriosclerosis: lack of progression to sclerotic lesions in B cell-deficient mice. Transplantation 1997;64(11):1531–6. 283. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, O’Connell PJ, Allen RD, Chapman JR. The natural history of chronic allograft nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2003;349(24):2326–33. 284. Rush D, Nickerson P, Gough J, et al. Beneficial effects of treatment of early subclinical rejection: a randomized study. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998;9(11):2129–34. 285. Cornell LD, Colvin RB. Chronic allograft nephropathy. Curr Op Nephrol Hyperten 2005;14(3):229–34. 286. Kuypers DR, Chapman JR, O’Connell PJ, Allen RD, Nankivell BJ. Predictors of renal transplant histology at three months. Transplantation 1999;67(9):1222–30. 287. Mannon RB, Matas AJ, Grande J, et  al. Inflammation in areas of tubular atrophy in kidney allograft biopsies: a potent predictor of allograft failure. Am J Transplant 2010;10(9):2066–73. 288. Mengel M, Reeve J, Bunnag S, et  al. Scoring total inflammation is superior to the current Banff inflammation score in predicting outcome and the degree of molecular disturbance in renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2009;9(8):1859–67. 289. Mihatsch MJ, Morozumi K, Strom EH, Ryffel B, Gudat F, Thiel G. Renal transplant morphology after long-term therapy with cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1995;27(1):39–42. 290. Mihatsch MJ, Theil G, Spichtin HP, et al. Morphological findings in kidney transplants after treatment with cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1983;15(Suppl. 1):2821–35. 291. Morozumi K, Takeda A, Uchida K, Mihatsch MJ. Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity: how does it affect renal allograft function and transplant morphology?. Transplant Proc 2004;36(Suppl. 2). 251S-6S. 292. Schwarz A, Mengel M, Gwinner W, et  al. Risk factors for chronic allograft nephropathy after renal transplantation: a protocol biopsy study. Kidney Int 2005;67(1):341–8. 293. Kee TY, Chapman JR, O’Connell PJ, et al. Treatment of subclinical rejection diagnosed by protocol biopsy of kidney transplants. Transplantation 2006;82(1):36–42. 294. Moreso F, Ibernon M, Goma M, et al. Subclinical rejection associated with chronic allograft nephropathy in protocol biopsies as a risk factor for late graft loss. Am J Transplant 2006;6(4):747–52. 295. Stegall MD, Park WD, Larson TS, et al. The histology of solitary renal allografts at 1 and 5 years after transplantation. Am J Transplant 2011;11(4):698–707. 296. Colvin RB. Eye of the needle. Am J Transplant 2007;7(2):267–8. 297. El-Zoghby ZM, Stegall MD, Lager DJ, et al. Identifying specific causes of kidney allograft loss. Am J Transplant 2009;9(3):527–35.


298. Schwarz A, Gwinner W, Hiss M, Radermacher J, Mengel M, Haller H. Safety and adequacy of renal transplant protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant 2005;5(8):1992–6. 299. Furness PN, Philpott CM, Chorbadjian MT, et al. Protocol biopsy of the stable renal transplant: a multicenter study of methods and complication rates. Transplantation 2003;76(6):969–73. 300. Rush DN, Henry SF, Jeffery JR, Schroeder TJ, Gough J. Histological findings in early routine biopsies of stable renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1994;57(2):208–11. 301. Rush DN, Jeffery JR, Gough J. Sequential protocol biopsies in renal transplant patients. Clinico-pathological correlations using the Banff schema. Transplantation 1995;59(4):511–4. 302. Nankivell BJ, Chapman JR. The significance of subclinical rejection and the value of protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant 2006;6(9):2006– 12. 303. Shishido S, Asanuma H, Nakai H, et  al. The impact of repeated subclinical acute rejection on the progression of chronic allograft nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14(4):1046–52. 304. Mengel M, Gwinner W, Schwarz A, et al. Infiltrates in protocol biopsies from renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2007;7(2):356–65. 305. Park WD, Griffin MD, Cornell LD, Cosio FG, Stegall MD. Fibrosis with inflammation at one year predicts transplant functional decline. J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;21(11):1987–97. 306. Mengel M, Bogers J, Bosmans JL, et al. Incidence of C4d stain in protocol biopsies from renal allografts: results from a multicenter trial. Am J Transplant 2005;5(5):1050–6. 307. Grimm PC, McKenna R, Nickerson P, et  al. Clinical rejection is distinguished from subclinical rejection by increased infiltration by a population of activated macrophages. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10(7):1582–9. 308. Shimizu A, Yamada K, Meehan SM, Sachs DH, Colvin RB. Intragraft cellular events associated with tolerance in pig allografts: the “acceptance reaction.” Transplant Proc. 1997;29:1155. 309. Russell PS, Chase CM, Colvin RB, Plate JM. Kidney transplants in mice: an analysis of the immune status of mice bearing long-term, H-2 incompatible transplants. J Exp Med 1978;147(5):1449–68. 310. Blancho G, Gianello PR, Lorf T, et al. Molecular and cellular events implicated in local tolerance to kidney allografts in miniature swine. Transplantation 1997;63:26–33. 311. Shimizu A, Yamada K, Meehan SM, Sachs DH, Colvin RB. Acceptance reaction: intragraft events associated with tolerance to renal allografts in miniature swine. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11(12):2371–80. 312. Lee I, Wang L, Wells AD, Dorf ME, Ozkaynak E, Hancock WW. Recruitment of Foxp3+ T regulatory cells mediating allograft tolerance depends on the CCR4 chemokine receptor. J Experiment Med 2005;201(7):1037–44. 313. Miyajima M, Chase CM, Alessandrini A, et  al. Early acceptance of renal allografts in mice is dependent on foxp3(+) cells. Am J Pathol 2011;178(4):1635–45. 314. Fudaba Y, Spitzer TR, Shaffer J, et  al. Myeloma responses and tolerance following combined kidney and nonmyeloablative marrow transplantation: in  vivo and in  vitro analyses. Am J Transplant 2006;6(9):2121–33. 315. Nankivell BJ, Borrows RJ, Fung CL, O’Connell PJ, Chapman JR, Allen RD. Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity: longitudinal assessment by protocol histology. Transplantation 2004;78(4):557–65. 316. Buehrig CK, Lager DJ, Stegall MD, et  al. Influence of surveillance renal allograft biopsy on diagnosis and prognosis of polyomavirusassociated nephropathy. Kidney Int 2003;64(2):665–73. 317. Roake JA, Fawcett J, Koo DD, Fuggle SV, Gray DW, Morris PJ. Late reflush in clinical renal transplantation: protection against delayed graft function not observed. Transplantation 1996;62(1):114–6. 318. Jain S, Curwood V, White SA, Furness PN, Nicholson ML. Sub-clinical acute rejection detected using protocol biopsies in patients with delayed graft function. Transplant Int 2000;13(Suppl. 1):S52–5. 319. Mihatsch MJ, Ryffel B, Gudat F. The differential diagnosis between rejection and cyclosporine toxicity. Kidney Int 1995;52:S63–9. 320. Ojo AO, Held PJ, Port FK, et al. Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ. N Engl J Med 2003;349(10):931–40. 321. Remuzzi G, Perico N. Cyclosporine-induced renal dysfunction in experimental animals and humans. Kidney Int 1995;52:S70–4. 322. Mihatsch MJ, Thiel G, Ryffel B. Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Advance Nephrol Necker Hosp 1988;17:303–20.


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

323. Marucci G, Morandi L, Macchia S, et al. Fibrinogen storage disease without hypofibrinogenaemia associated with acute infection. Histopathology 2003;42(1):22–5. 324. Solez K, Racusen LC, Marcussen N, et  al. Morphology of ischemic acute renal failure, normal function, and cyclosporine toxicity in cyclosporine-treated renal allograft recipients. Kidney Int 1993;43(5):1058–67. 325. Larsen S, Brun C, Duun S, Lokkegaard H, Thomsen HS. Early arteriolopathy following “high-dose” cyclosporine in kidney transplantation. Apmis 1988;(Suppl.)4:66–73. 326. Bergstrand A, Bohmann SO, Farnsworth A, et  al. Renal histopathology in kidney transplant recipients immunosuppressed with cyclosporin A: results of an international workshop. Clin Nephrol 1985;24(3):107–19. 327. Shulman H, Striker G, Deeg HJ, Kennedy M, Storb R, Thomas ED. Nephrotoxicity of cyclosporin A after allogeneic marrow transplantation: glomerular thromboses and tubular injury. N Eng J Med 1981;305:1392–5. 328. Hochstetler LA, Flanigan MJ, Lager DJ. Transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy: the role of IgG administration as initial therapy. Am J Kidney Dis 1994;23(3):444–50. 329. Candinas D, Keusch G, Schlumpf R, Burger HR, Gmur J, Largiader F. Hemolytic-uremic syndrome following kidney transplantation: prognostic factors. Schweizerische Med Wochenschrift J Suisse Med 1994;124(41):1789–99. 330. Sommer BG, Innes JT, Whitehurst RM, Sharma HM, Ferguson RM. Cyclosporine-associated renal arteriopathy resulting in loss of allograft function. Am J Surg 1985;149(6):756–64. 331. Mihatsch MJ, Gudat F, Ryffel B, Thiel G. Cyclosporine nephropathy. In: Tisher CC, Brenner BM, editors. Renal pathology: with clinical and functional correlations. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1994. p. 1641–81. 332. Van den Berg-Wolf MG, Kootte AM, Weening JJ, Paul LC. Recurrent hemolytic uremic syndrome in a renal transplant recipient and review of the Leiden experience. Transplantation 1988;45(1): 248–51. 333. Haas M, Sonnenday CJ, Cicone JS, Rabb H, Montgomery RA. Isometric tubular epithelial vacuolization in renal allograft biopsy specimens of patients receiving low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin for a positive crossmatch. Transplantation 2004;78(4):549–56. 334. Mihatsch M, Thiel G, Ryffel B. Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. Advance Nephrol 1988;17:303–20. 335. Loomis LJ, Aronson AJ, Rudinsky R, Spargo BH. Hemolytic uremic syndrome following bone marrow transplantation: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Kidney Dis 1989;14(4):324–8. 336. Noris M, Remuzzi G. Thrombotic microangiopathy after kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 2010;10(7):1517–23. 337. Baid S, Pascual M, Williams Jr WW, et  al. Renal thrombotic microangiopathy associated with anticardiolipin antibodies in hepatitis C-positive renal allograft recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10(1):146–53. 338. Myers BD, Ross J, Newton L, Luetscher J, Perlroth M. Cyclosporineassociated chronic nephropathy. N Eng J Med 1984;311(699): 699–705. 339. Randhawa PS, Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Starzl TE, Demetris AJ. The histopathological changes associated with allograft rejection and drug toxicity in renal transplant recipients maintained on FK506. Clinical significance and comparison with cyclosporine. Am J Path Surg Path 1993;17(1):60–8. 340. Stegall MD, Park WD, Larson TS, et al. The histology of solitary renal allografts at 1 and 5 years after transplantation. Am J Transplant 2011;11(4):698–707. 341. Nizze H, Mihatsch MJ, Zollinger HU, et  al. Cyclosporine-associated nephropathy in patients with heart and bone marrow transplants. Clin Nephrol 1988;30:248–60. 342. Dische FE, Neuberger J, Keating J, Parsons V, Calne RY, Williams R. Kidney pathology in liver allograft recipients after long-term treatment with cyclosporin A. Lab Invest 1988;58(4):395–402. 343. Myers BD, Sibley R, Newton L, et al. The long-term course of cyclosporine-associated chronic nephropathy. Kidney Int 1988;33(2): 590–600. 344. Yamaguchi Y, Teraoka S, Yagisawa T, Takahashi K, Toma H, Ota K. Ultrastructural study of cyclosporine-associated arteriolopathy in renal allografts. Transplant Proc 1989;21(1 Pt 2):1517–22. 345. Rossmann P, Jirka J, Chadimova M, Reneltova I, Saudek F. Arteriolosclerosis of the human renal allograft: morphology, origin, life

history and relationship to cyclosporine therapy. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 1991;418(2):129–41. 346. Antonovych TT, Sabnis SG, Austin HA, et al. Cyclosporine A-induced arteriolopathy. Transplant Proc 1988;20(3 Suppl. 3):951–8. 347. Strom EH, Epper R, Mihatsch MJ. Ciclosporin-associated arteriolopathy: the renin producing vascular smooth muscle cells are more sensitive to ciclosporin toxicity. Clin Nephrol 1995;43(4):226–31. 348. Strom EH, Thiel G, Mihatsch MJ. Prevalence of cyclosporine-associated arteriolopathy in renal transplant biopsies from 1981 to 1992. Transplant Proc 1994;26(5):2585–7. 349. Savoldi S, Scolari F, Sandrini S, Scaini P, Sacchi R, Tardanico R, et al. Cyclosporine chronic nephrotoxicity: histologic follow up at 6 and 18 months after renal transplant. Transplant Proc 1988;20(3 Suppl. 3): 777–84. 350. Young EW, Ellis CN, Messana JM, et al. A prospective study of renal structure and function in psoriasis patients treated with cyclosporin. Kidney Int 1994;46(4):1216–22. 351. Pei Y, Scholey JW, Katz A, Schachter R, Murphy GF, Cattran D. Chronic nephrotoxicity in psoriatic patients treated with low-dose cyclosporine. Am J Kidney Dis 1994;23(4):528–36. 352. Sis B, Dadras F, Khoshjou F, Cockfield S, Mihatsch MJ, Solez K. Reproducibility studies on arteriolar hyaline thickening scoring in calcineurin inhibitor-treated renal allograft recipients. Am J Transplant 2006;6(6):1444–50. 353. Myers BD, Newton L, Boshkos C, et al. Chronic injury of human renal microvessels with low-dose cyclosporine therapy. Transplantation 1988;46(5):694–703. 354. Goes NB, Colvin RB. Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 12-2007. A 56-year-old woman with renal failure after heartlung transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007; 19;356(16):1657–65. 355. Thiru S, Maher ER, Hamilton DV, Evans DB, Calne RY. Tubular changes in renal transplant recipients on cyclosporine. Transplant Proc 1983;15:2846–51. 356. Farnsworth A, Hall BM, Ng A, et  al. Renal biopsy morphology in renal transplantation. Am J Path Surg Path 1984;8:243–52. 357. Rosen S, Greenfeld Z, Brezis M. Chronic cyclosporine-induced nephropathy in the rat. Transplantation 1990;49:445–52. 358. Dell’Antonio G, Randhawa PS. “Striped” pattern of medullary ray fibrosis in allograft biopsies from kidney transplant recipients maintained on tacrolimus. Transplantation 1999;67(3):484–6. 359. Zachariae H, Hansen HE, Kragballe K, Olsen S. Morphologic renal changes during cyclosporine treatment of psoriasis. Studies on pretreatment and posttreatment kidney biopsy specimens. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:415–9. 360. Palestine AG, Austin III HA, Balow JE, et al. Renal histopathologic alterations in patients treated with cyclosporine for uveitis. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1293–8. 361. Mihatsch MJ, Helmchen U, Casanova P, et al. Kidney biopsy findings in cyclosporine-treated patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Klinische Wochenschrift 1991;69(8):354–9. 362. Messana JM, Johnson KJ, Mihatsch MJ. Renal structure and function effects after low dose cyclosporine in psoriasis patients: a preliminary report. Clin Nephrol 1995;43(3):150–3. 363. Nadasdy T, Krenacs T, Kalmar KN, Csajbok E, Boda K, Ormos J. Importance of plasma cells in the infiltrate of renal allografts: an immunohistochemical study. Pathol Res Prac 1991;187(2-3):178–83. 364. Smith KD, Wrenshall LE, Nicosia RF, et  al. Delayed graft function and cast nephropathy associated with tacrolimus plus rapamycin use. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003;14(4):1037–45. 365. Reynolds JC, Agodoa LY, Yuan CM, Abbott KC. Thrombotic microangiopathy after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42(5):1058–68. 366. Letavernier E, Pe’raldi MN, Pariente A, Morelon E, Legendre C. Proteinuria following a switch from calcineurin inhibitors to sirolimus. Transplantation 2005;80(9):1198–203. 367. van den Akker JM, Wetzels JF, Hoitsma AJ. Proteinuria following conversion from azathioprine to sirolimus in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int 2006;70(7):1355–7. 368. Stephany BR, Augustine JJ, Krishnamurthi V, et  al. Differences in proteinuria and graft function in de novo sirolimus-based vs. calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression in live donor kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2006;82(3):368–74. 369. Dittrich E, Schmaldienst S, Soleiman A, Horl WH, Pohanka E. Rapamycin-associated post-transplantation glomerulonephritis and its remission after reintroduction of calcineurin-inhibitor therapy. Transplant Int 2004;17(4):215–20.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation 370. Straathof-Galema L, Wetzels JF, Dijkman HB, Steenbergen EJ, Hilbrands LB. Sirolimus-associated heavy proteinuria in a renal transplant recipient: evidence for a tubular mechanism. Am J Transplant 2006;6(2):429–33. 371. Izzedine H, Brocheriou I, Frances C. Post-transplantation proteinuria and sirolimus. N Engl J Med 2005;353(19):2088–9. 372. Kormendi F, Amend W. The importance of eosinophil cells in kidney allograft rejection. Transplantation 1988;45(3):537–9. 373. Weir MR, Hall-Craggs M, Shen SY, et  al. The prognostic value of the eosinophil in acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1986;41(6):709–12. 374. Hongwei W, Nanra RS, Stein A, Avis L, Price A, Hibberd AD. Eosinophils in acute renal allograft rejection. Transplant Immunol 1994;2(1):41–6. 375. Hallgren R, Bohman SO, Fredens K. Activated eosinophil infiltration and deposits of eosinophil cationic protein in renal allograft rejection. Nephron 1991;59(2):266–70. 376. Ten RM, Gleich GJ, Holley KE, Perkins JD, Torres VE. Eosinophil granule major basic protein in acute renal allograft rejection. Transplantation 1989;47(6):959–63. 377. Colvin RB, Fang LS-T. Interstitial nephritis. In: Tisher CC, Brenner BM, editors. Renal pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott; 1994. p. 723–68. 378. Farris AB, Ellis CL, Rogers TE, Chon WJ, Chang A, Meehan SM. Renal allograft granulomatous interstitial nephritis: observations of an uncommon injury pattern in 22 transplant recipients. Clin Kidney J 2017;10(2):240–8. 379. Meehan SM, Josephson MA, Haas M. Granulomatous tubulointerstitial nephritis in the renal allograft. Am J Kidney Dis 2000;36(4):E27. 380. Silbert PL, Matz LR, Christiansen K, Saker BM, Richardson M. Herpes simplex virus interstitial nephritis in a renal allograft. Clin Nephrol 1990;33:264–8. 381. Cosio FG, Roche Z, Agarwal A, Falkenhain ME, Sedmak DD, Ferguson RM. Prevalence of hepatitis C in patients with idiopathic glomerulonephritis in native and transplant kidneys. Am J Kidney Dis 1996;28:752–8. 382. Nickeleit V, Mihatsch MJ. Polyomavirus nephropathy in native kidneys and renal allografts: an update on an escalating threat. Transpl Int 2006;19(12):960–73. 383. Drachenberg CB, Hirsch HH, Ramos E, Papadimitriou JC. Polyomavirus disease in renal transplantation: review of pathological findings and diagnostic methods. Hum Pathol 2005;36(12):1245–55. 384. Drachenberg CB, Beskow CO, Cangro CB, et  al. Human polyoma virus in renal allograft biopsies: morphological findings and correlation with urine cytology. Hum Pathol 1999;30(8):970–7. 385. Nickeleit V, Hirsch HH, Binet IF, et  al. Polyomavirus infection of renal allograft recipients: from latent infection to manifest disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999;10(5):1080–9. 386. Mathur VS, Olson JL, Darragh TM, Yen TS. Polyomavirus-induced interstitial nephritis in two renal transplant recipients: case reports and review of the literature. Am J Kidney Dis 1997;29(5):754–8. 387. Pappo O, Demetris AJ, Raikow RB, Randhawa PS. Human polyoma virus infection of renal allografts: histopathologic diagnosis, clinical significance, and literature review. Mod Path 1996;9(2):105–9. 388. Gardner SD, Field AM, Coleman DV, Hulme B. New human papovavirus (B.K.) isolated from urine after renal transplantation. Lancet 1971;1:1253–7. 389. Coleman DV, MacKenzie EFD, Gardner SD, Poulding JM, Amer B, Russell WJI. Human polyoma virus (BK) infection and ureteric stenosis in renal allograft recipients. J Clin Path 1978;31:338–47. 390. Gardner SD, MacKenzie EF, Smith C, Porter AA. Prospective study of the human polyomaviruses BK and JC and cytomegalovirus in renal transplant recipients. J Clin Path 1984;37(5):578–86. 391. Hogan TF, Borden EC, McBain JA, Padgett BL, Walker DL. Human polyomavirus infections with JC virus and BK virus in renal transplant patients. Ann Intern Med 1980;92(3):373–8. 392. Drachenberg CB, Hirsch HH, Ramos E, Papadimitriou JC. Polyomavirus disease in renal transplantation: review of pathological findings and diagnostic methods. Hum Pathol 2005;36(12):1245–55. 393. Drachenberg CB, Papadimitriou JC, Hirsch HH, et  al. Histological patterns of polyomavirus nephropathy: correlation with graft outcome and viral load. Am J Transplant 2004;4(12):2082–92. 394. Hirsch HH, Brennan DC, Drachenberg CB, et al. Polyomavirus-associated nephropathy in renal transplantation: interdisciplinary analyses and recommendations. Transplantation 2005;79(10):1277–86.


395. Nickeleit V, Mihatsch MJ. Polyomavirus nephropathy: pathogenesis, morphological and clinical aspects. In: Kreipe HH, editor. Verh dtsch ges pathol, 88. Tagung. Muenchen. Jena: Urban & Fischer; 2004. p. 69–84. 396. Nickeleit V, Steiger J, Mihatsch MJ. BK virus infection after kidney transplantation. Graft 2002;5(Dec suppl.):S46–57. 397. Bracamonte ER, Furmanczyk PS, Smith KD, Nicosia RF, Alpers CE, Kowelewska J. Tubular basement membrane immune deposits associated with polyoma virus nephropathy in renal allografts. Mod Path 2006;19:259A. 398. Limaye AP, Smith KD, Cook L, et al. Polyomavirus nephropathy in native kidneys of non-renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2005;5(3):614–20. 399. Lim AK, Parsons S, Ierino F. Adenovirus tubulointerstitial nephritis presenting as a renal allograft space occupying lesion. Am J Transplant 2005;5(8):2062–6. 400. Yagisawa T, Nakada T, Takahashi K, Toma H, Ota K, Yaguchi H. Acute hemorrhagic cystitis caused by adenovirus after kidney transplantation. Urol Int 1995;54(3):142–6. 401. Nickeleit V. Critical commentary to: Acute adenoviral infection of a graft by serotype 35 following renal transplantation pathology, research and practice. Jena 2003;199:701–2. 402. Singh HK, Nickeleit V. Kidney disease caused by viral infections. Curr Diag Pathol 2004;10:11–21. 403. Ito M, Hirabayashi N, Uno Y, Nakayama A, Asai J. Necrotizing tubulointerstitial nephritis associated with adenovirus infection. Hum Pathol 1991;22(12):1225–31. 404. Bruno B, Zager RA, Boeckh MJ, et  al. Adenovirus nephritis in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Transplantation 2004;77(7):1049–57. 405. Mathur SC, Squiers EC, Tatum AH, et al. Adenovirus infection of the renal allograft with sparing of pancreas graft function in the recipient of a combined kidney-pancreas transplant. Transplantation 1998;65(1):138–41. 406. Yang CW, Kim YS, Yang KH, Chang YS, Yoon YS, Bang BK. Acute focal bacterial nephritis presented as acute renal failure and hepatic dysfunction in a renal transplant recipient. Am J Nephrol 1994;14(1):72–5. 407. Gillum DM, Kelleher SP. Acute pyelonephritis as a cause of late transplant dysfunction. Am J Path Med 1985;78(1):156–8. 408. Hansen BL, Rohr N, Svendsen V, Olsen H, Birkeland SA. Bacterial urinary tract infection in cyclosporine-A immunosuppressed renal transplant recipients. Scand J Infect Dis 1988;20(4):425–7. 409. Kalra OP, Malik N, Minz M, Gupta KL, Sakhuja V, Chugh KS. Emphysematous pyelonephritis and cystitis in a renal transplant recipient—computed tomographic appearance. Int J Artificial Org 1993;16(1):41–4. 410. Pearson JC, Amend Jr WJ, Vincenti FG, Feduska NJ, Salvatierra Jr O. Post-transplantation pyelonephritis: factors producing low patient and transplant morbidity. J Urol 1980;123(2):153–6. 411. Elkhammas EA, Mutabagani KH, Sedmak DD, Tesi RJ, Henry ML, Ferguson RM. Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in renal allografts: report of 2 cases. J Urol 1994;151(1):127–8. 412. Jones BF, Nanra RS, Grant AB, Ferguson NW, White KH. Xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis in a renal allograft: a case report. J Urol 1989;141(4):926–7. 413. Stern SC, Lakhani S, Morgan SH. Renal allograft dysfunction due to vesicoureteric obstruction by nodular malakoplakia. Neph Dial Transplant 1994;9(8):1188–90. 414. Bakir N, Sluiter WJ, Ploeg RJ, van Son WJ, Tegzess AM. Primary renal graft thrombosis. Neph Dial Transplant 1996;11(1):140–7. 415. Simmons RL, Tallent MB, Kjellstrand CM, Najarian JS. Renal allo­ graft rejection simulated by arterial stenosis. Surgery 1970;68(5): 800–4. 416. Bruno S, Remuzzi G, Ruggenenti P. Transplant renal artery stenosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15(1):134–41. 417. Said R, Duarte R, Chaballout A, el Boghdadly S, Nezamuddin N. Spontaneous rupture of renal allograft. Urology 1994;43(4):554–8. 418. Merion RM, Calne RY. Allograft renal vein thrombosis. Transplant Proc 1985;17:1746–50. 419. Schwarz A, Krause PH, Offermann G, Keller F. Impact of de novo membranous glomerulonephritis on the clinical course after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1994;58(6):650–4. 420. Marcen R, Pascual J, Quereda C, et  al. Lupus anticoagulant and thrombosis of kidney allograft vessels. Transplant Proc 1990;22(4):1396–8.


Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice

421. Heidet L, Gagnadoux ME, Beziau A, Niaudet P, Broyer M, Habib R. Recurrence of de novo membranous glomerulonephritis on renal grafts. Clin Nephrol 1994;41(5):314–8. 422. Morales JM, Pascual-Capdevila J, Campistol JM, et al. Membranous glomerulonephritis associated with hepatitis C virus infection in renal transplant patients. Transplantation 1997;63(11):1634–9. 423. Cruzado JM, Carrera M, Torras J, Grinyo JM. Hepatitis C virus infection and de novo glomerular lesions in renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2001;1(2):171–8. 424. Rodriguez EF, Cosio FG, Nasr SH, et al. The pathology and clinical features of early recurrent membranous glomerulonephritis. Am J Transplant 2012;12(4):1029–38. 425. Monga G, Mazzucco G, Basolo B, et al. Membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN) in transplanted kidneys: investigation on 256 renal allografts. Mod Path 1993;6(3):249–58. 426. Cosyns JP, Kazatchkine MD, Bhakdi S, et al. Immunohistochemical analysis of C3 cleavage fragments, factor H, and the C5b-9 terminal complex of complement in de novo membranous glomerulonephritis occurring in patients with renal transplant. Clin Nephrol 1986;26(4):203–8. 427. Truong L, Gelfand J, D’Agati V, et al. De novo membranous glomerulonephropathy in renal allografts: a report of ten cases and review of the literature. Am J Kidney Dis 1989;14(2):131–44. 428. Antignac C, Hinglais N, Gubler MC, Gagnadoux MF, Broyer M, Habib R. De novo membranous glomerulonephritis in renal allografts in children. Clin Nephrol 1988;30(1):1–7. 429. Thoenes GH, Pielsticker K, Schubert G. Transplantation-induced immune complex kidney disease in rats with unilateral manifestations in the allografted kidney. Lab Invest 1979;41(321):321–9. 430. Larsen CP, Walker PD. Phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R) staining is useful in the determination of de novo versus recurrent membranous glomerulopathy. Transplantation 2013;95(10):1259–62. 431. Kashtan CE. Alport syndrome and thin glomerular basement membrane disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998;9(9):1736–50. 432. Kashtan CE. Alport syndrome: renal transplantation and donor selection. Renal Fail 2000;22(6):765–8. 433. Bach D, Peters A, Rowemeier H, Degenhardt S, Helmchen U, Grabensee B. [Anti-basal membrane glomerulonephritis after homologous kidney transplantation in hereditary Alport’s nephropathy]. Deutsche Med Wochenschrift (1946) 1991;116(46):1752–6. 434. Vangelista A, Frasca GM, Martella D, Bonomini V. Glomerulonephritis in renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1990;1:42–6. 435. Diaz JI, Valenzuela R, Gephardt G, Novick A, Tubbs RR. Anti-glomerular and anti-tubular basement membrane nephritis in a renal allograft recipient with Alport’s syndrome. Ann Path Lab Med 1994;118(7):728–31. 436. Goldman M, Depierreux M, De Pauw L, et  al. Failure of two subsequent renal grafts by anti-GBM glomerulonephritis in Alport’s syndrome: case report and review of the literature. Transplant Int 1990;3(2):82–5. 437. Gobel J, Olbricht CJ, Offner G, et al. Kidney transplantation in Alport’s syndrome: long-term outcome and allograft anti-GBM nephritis. Clin Nephrol 1992;38(6):299–304. 438. Mahan JD, Maver SM, Sibley RK, Vernier RL. Congenital nephrotic syndrome: evolution of medical management and results of transplantation. J Pediatr 1984;105. 549-7. 439. Nyberg G, Friman S, Svalander C, Norden G. Spectrum of hereditary renal disease in a kidney transplant population. Neph Dial Transplant 1995;10(6):859–65. 440. Lane PH, Schnaper HW, Vernier RL, Bunchman TE. Steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome following renal transplantation for congenital nephrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 1991;5(3):300–3. 441. Flynn JT, Schulman SL, deChadarevian JP, et al. Treatment of steroid-resistant post-transplant nephrotic syndrome with cyclophosphamide in a child with congenital nephrotic syndrome. Pediatr Nephrol 1992;6(6):553–5. 442. Patrakka J, Ruotsalainen V, Reponen P, et  al. Recurrence of nephrotic syndrome in kidney grafts of patients with congenital nephrotic syndrome of the Finnish type: role of nephrin. Transplantation 2002;73(3):394–403. 443. Woolley AC, Rosenberg ME, Burke BA, Nath KA. De novo focal glomerulosclerosis after kidney transplantation. Am J Path Med 1988;84(2):310–4.

444. Neumayer HH, Huls S, Schreiber M, Riess R, Luft FC. Kidneys from pediatric donors: risk versus benefit. Clin Nephrol 1994;41(2): 94–100. 445. Meehan SM, Pascual M, Williams WW, et al. De novo collapsing glomerulopathy in renal allografts. Transplantation 1998;65(9):1192–7. 446. Nadasdy T, Allen C, Zand MS. Zonal distribution of glomerular collapse in renal allografts: possible role of vascular changes. Hum Pathol 2002;33(4):437–41. 447. Stokes MB, Davis CL, Alpers CE. Collapsing glomerulopathy in renal allografts: a morphological pattern with diverse clinicopathologic associations. Am J Kidney Dis 1999;33(4):658–66. 448. Cameron JS. Recurrent primary disease and de novo nephritis following renal transplantation. Pediatr Nephrol 1991;5(4):412–21. 449. Ramos EL, Tisher CC. Recurrent diseases in the kidney transplant. Am J Kidney Dis 1994;24(1):142–54. 450. Floege J. Recurrent glomerulonephritis following renal transplantation: an update. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003;18(7):1260–5. 451. Rodriguez EF, Cosio FG, Nasr SH, et al. The pathology and clinical features of early recurrent membranous glomerulonephritis. Am J Transplant 2012;12(4):1029–38. 452. Østerby R, Nyberg G, Karlberg I, Svalander C. Glomerular volume in kidneys transplanted into diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Diabet Med 1992;9(2):144–9. 453. Wilczek HE, Jaremko G, Tyden G, Groth CG. Evolution of diabetic nephropathy in kidney grafts: evidence that a simulatneously transplanted kidney exerts a protective effect. Transplantation 1995;59:51–7. 454. Stegall MD, Cornell LD, Park WD, Smith BH, Cosio FG. Renal allograft histology at 10 years after transplantation in the tacrolimus era: evidence of pervasive chronic injury. Am J Transplant 2018;18(1):180–8. Available online at: ajt.14431. 455. Bohman SO, Tyden G, Wilczek H, et  al. Prevention of kidney graft diabetic nephropathy by pancreas transplantation in man. Diabetes 1985;34:306–8. 456. Hariharan S, Smith RD, Viero R, First MR. Diabetic nephropathy after renal transplantation. Clinical and pathologic features. Transplantation 1996;62(5):632–5. 457. Bergstralh EJ, Monico CG, Lieske JC, et al. Transplantation outcomes in primary hyperoxaluria. Am J Transplant 2010;10(11):2493–501. 458. Rosales IA, Collins AB, do Carmo PA, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Smith RN, Colvin RB. Immune complex tubulointerstitial nephritis due to autoantibodies to the proximal tubule brush border. J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;27(2):380–4. 459. Larsen CP, Trivin-Avillach C, Coles P, et  al. LDL receptor-related protein 2 (megalin) as a target antigen in human kidney anti-brush border antibody disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2018;29(2):644–53. Available online at: 460. Morath C, Mueller M, Goldschmidt H, Schwenger V, Opelz G, Zeier M. Malignancy in renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004;15(6):1582–8. 461. Kasiske BL, Snyder JJ, Gilbertson DT, Wang C. Cancer after kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2004;4(6):905–13. 462. Maisonneuve P, Agodoa L, Gellert R, et al. Cancer in patients on dialysis for end-stage renal disease: an international collaborative study. Lancet 1999;354(9173):93–9. 463. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al., editors. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. Albany, NY: WHO Publications Center; 2008. 464. Dotti G, Fiocchi R, Motta T, et al. Epstein-Barr virus-negative lymphoproliferate disorders in long-term survivors after heart, kidney, and liver transplant. Transplantation 2000;69(5):827–33. 465. Nelson BP, Nalesnik MA, Bahler DW, Locker J, Fung JJ, Swerdlow SH. Epstein-Barr virus-negative post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders: a distinct entity? Am J Surg Pathol 2000;24(3):375–85. 466. Quinlan SC, Pfeiffer RM, Morton LM, Engels EA. Risk factors for early-onset and late-onset post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in kidney recipients in the United States. Am J hematology 2011;86(2):206–9. 467. Olagne J, Caillard S, Gaub MP, Chenard MP, Moulin B. Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders: determination of donor/recipient origin in a large cohort of kidney recipients. Am J Transplant 2011;11(6):1260–9.

25 • Pathology of Kidney Transplantation 468. Opelz G, Dohler B. Lymphomas after solid organ transplantation: a collaborative transplant study report. Am J Transplant 2004;4(2):222–30. 469. Sampaio MS, Cho YW, Shah T, Bunnapradist S, Hutchinson IV. Impact of Epstein-Barr virus donor and recipient serostatus on the incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in kidney transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27(7):2971–9. 470. Cherikh WS, Kauffman HM, McBride MA, Maghirang J, Swinnen LJ, Hanto DW. Association of the type of induction immunosuppression with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, graft survival, and patient survival after primary kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2003;76(9):1289–93. 471. Caillard S, Lelong C, Pessione F, Moulin B. Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders occurring after renal transplantation in adults: report of 230 cases from the French Registry. Am J Transplant 2006;6(11):2735–42. 472. Arora S, Tangirala B, Osadchuk L, Sureshkumar KK. Belatacept: a new biological agent for maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplantation. Expert Opin Biol Therapy 2012;12(7):965–79. 473. Snanoudj R, Frangie C, Deroure B, et al. The blockade of T-cell costimulation as a therapeutic stratagem for immunosuppression: focus on belatacept. Biol Targets Therapy 2007;1(3):203–13. 474. Trofe J, Buell JF, Beebe TM, et  al. Analysis of factors that influence survival with post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder in renal transplant recipients: the Israel Penn International Transplant Tumor Registry experience. Am J Transplant 2005;5(4 Pt 1):775–80. 475. Schmidtko J, Wang R, Wu CL, et al. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder associated with an Epstein-Barr-related virus in cynomolgus monkeys. Transplantation 2002;73(9):1431–9. 476. Randhawa PS, Magnone M, Jordan M, Shapiro R, Demetris AJ, Nalesnik M. Renal allograft involvement by Epstein-Barr virus associated post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease. Am J Path Surg Path 1996;20(5):563–71. 477. Dalianis T, Hirsch HH. Human polyomaviruses in disease and cancer. Virology 2013;437(2):63–72. 478. Alexiev BA, Papadimitriou JC, Chai TC, Ramos E, Staats PN, Drachenberg CB. Polyomavirus (BK)-associated pleomorphic giant cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder: a case report. Path Res Pract 2013;209(4):255–9.


479. Lavien G, Alger J, Preece J, Alexiev BA, Alexander RB. BK virus-associated invasive urothelial carcinoma with prominent micropapillary carcinoma component in a cardiac transplant patient: case report and review of literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2015;13(6):e397–9. 480. Alexiev BA, Randhawa P, Vazquez Martul E, et al. BK virus-associated urinary bladder carcinoma in transplant recipients: report of 2 cases, review of the literature, and proposed pathogenetic model. Hum Pathol 2013;44(5):908–17. 481. Papadimitriou JC, Randhawa P, Rinaldo CH, Drachenberg CB, Alexiev B, Hirsch HH. BK Polyomavirus infection and renourinary tumorigenesis. Am J Transplant 2016;16(2):398–406. 482. Emerson LL, Carney HM, Layfield LJ, Sherbotie JR. Collecting duct carcinoma arising in association with BK nephropathy post-transplantation in a pediatric patient: a case report with immunohistochemical and in situ hybridization study. Pediatr Transplant 2008;12(5):600–5. 483. Dufek S, Haitel A, Muller-Sacherer T, Aufricht C. Duct Bellini carcinoma in association with BK virus nephropathy after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013;32(3):378–9. 484. Mengel M, Gwinner W, Schwarz A, et al. Infiltrates in protocol biopsies from renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2007;7(2):356–65. 485. Schwimmer JA, Markowitz GS, Valeri AM, Imbriano LJ, Alvis R, D’Agati VD. Secondary focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in non-obese patients with increased muscle mass. Clin Nephrol 2003;60(4):233–41. 486. Farris AB, Colvin RB. Renal interstitial fibrosis: mechanisms and evaluation. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2012;21(3):289–300. 487. Farris AB, Alpers CE. What is the best way to measure renal fibrosis?: A pathologist’s perspective. Kidney Int 2014;4(1):9–15. 488. Farris AB, Chan S, Climenhaga J, et  al. Banff fibrosis study: multicenter visual assessment and computerized analysis of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies. Am J Transplant 2014;14(4):897–907. 489. Farris AB, Cohen C, Rogers TE, Smith GH. Whole slide imaging for analytical anatomic pathology and telepathology: practical applications today, promises, and perils. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141(4):542–50. 490. Farris AB, Ellis CL, Rogers TE, Lawson D, Cohen C, Rosen S. Renal medullary and cortical correlates in fibrosis, epithelial mass, microvascularity, and microanatomy using whole slide image analysis morphometry. PLoS One 2016;11(8):e0161019.