SWOT analysis of banff: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the international banff consensus process and classification system for renal allograft pathology

被引:85
作者
Mengel, M. [1 ]
Sis, B.
Halloran, P. F.
机构
[1] Alberta Transplant Appl Genom Ctr, Div Nephrol, Dept Med, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Univ Alberta, Dept Lab Med & Pathol, Edmonton, AB, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01924.x
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
The Banff process defined the diagnostic histologic lesions for renal allograft rejection and created a standardized classification system where none had existed. By correcting this deficit the process had universal impact on clinical practice and clinical and basic research. All trials of new drugs since the early 1990s benefited, because the Banff classification of lesions permitted the end point of biopsy-proven rejection. The Banff process has strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). The strength is its self-organizing group structure to create consensus. Consensus does not mean correctness: defining consensus is essential if a widely held view is to be proved wrong. The weaknesses of the Banff process are the absence of an independent external standard to test the classification; and its almost exclusive reliance on histopathology, which has inherent limitations in intra- and interobserver reproducibility, particularly at the interface between borderline and rejection, is exactly where clinicians demand precision. The opportunity lies in the new technology such as transcriptomics, which can form an external standard and can be incorporated into a new classification combining the elegance of histopathology and the objectivity of transcriptomics. The threat is the degree to which the renal transplant community will participate in and support this process.
引用
收藏
页码:2221 / 2226
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Billingham M E, 1990, J Heart Transplant, V9, P587
[2]  
Colvin RB, 1997, J AM SOC NEPHROL, V8, P1930
[3]  
DAMMIN G J, 1960, Med Bull (Ann Arbor), V26, P278
[4]   Early loss of renal transcripts in kidney allografts: Relationship to the development of histologic lesions and alloimmune effector mechanisms [J].
Einecke, G. ;
Broderick, G. ;
Sis, B. ;
Halloran, P. F. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2007, 7 (05) :1121-1130
[5]   Tubulitis and epithelial cell alterations in mouse kidney transplant rejection are independent of CD103, perforin or granzymes A/B [J].
Einecke, G. ;
Fairhead, T. ;
Hidalgo, L. G. ;
Sis, B. ;
Turner, P. ;
Zhu, L. -F. ;
Bleackley, R. C. ;
Hadley, G. A. ;
Famulski, K. S. ;
Halloran, P. F. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2006, 6 (09) :2109-2120
[6]   Expression of CTL associated transcripts precedes the development of tubulitis in T-cell mediated kidney graft rejection [J].
Einecke, G ;
Melk, A ;
Ramassar, V ;
Zhu, LF ;
Bleackley, RC ;
Famulski, KS ;
Halloran, PF .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2005, 5 (08) :1827-1836
[7]   International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility [J].
Furness, PN ;
Taub, N ;
Assmann, KJM ;
Banfi, G ;
Cosyns, JP ;
Dorman, AM ;
Hill, CM ;
Kapper, SK ;
Waldherr, R ;
Laurinavicius, A ;
Marcussen, N ;
Martins, AP ;
Nogueira, M ;
Regele, H ;
Seron, D ;
Carrera, M ;
Sund, S ;
Taskinen, EI ;
Paavonen, T ;
Tihomirova, T ;
Rosenthal, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2003, 27 (06) :805-810
[8]   International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: Report of the CERTPAP Project [J].
Furness, PN ;
Taub, N .
KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL, 2001, 60 (05) :1998-2012
[9]   Reproducibility of the Banff schema in reporting protocol biopsies of stable renal allografts [J].
Gough, J ;
Rush, D ;
Jeffery, J ;
Nickerson, P ;
McKenna, R ;
Solez, K ;
Trpkov, K .
NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION, 2002, 17 (06) :1081-1084
[10]   Acute renal allograft rejection with intimal arteritis: Histologic predictors of response to therapy and graft survival [J].
Haas, M ;
Kraus, ES ;
Samaniego-Picota, N ;
Racusen, LC ;
Ni, W ;
Eustace, JA .
KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL, 2002, 61 (04) :1516-1526