Delphi:A Democratic and Cost-Effective Method of Consensus Generation in Transplantation

The Thrombotic Microangiopathy Banff Working Group (TMA-BWG) was formed in 2015 to survey current practices and develop minimum diagnostic criteria (MDC) for renal transplant TMA (Tx-TMA). To generate consensus among pathologists and nephrologists, the TMA BWG designed a 3-Phase study. Phase I of the study is presented here. Using the Delphi methodology, 23 panelists with &gt;3 years of diagnostic experience with Tx-TMA pathology listed their MDC suggesting light, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopy lesions, clinical and laboratory information, and differential diagnoses. Nine rounds (R) of consensus resulted in MDC validated during two Rs using online evaluation of whole slide digital images of 37 biopsies (28 TMA, 9 non-TMA). Starting with 338 criteria the process resulted in 24 criteria and 8 differential diagnoses including 18 pathologic, 2 clinical, and 4 laboratory criteria. Results show that 3/4 of the panelists agreed on the diagnosis of 3/4 of cases. The process also allowed definition refinement for 4 light and 4 electron microscopy lesions. For the first time in Banff classification, the Delphi methodology was used to generate consensus. The study shows that Delphi is a democratic and cost-effective method allowing rapid consensus generation among numerous physicians dealing with large number of criteria in transplantation.</p

Thrombotic Microangiopathy in the Renal Allograft:Results of the TMA Banff Working Group Consensus on Pathologic Diagnostic Criteria

The Banff community summoned the TMA Banff Working Group to develop minimum diagnostic criteria (MDC) and recommendations for renal transplant TMA (Tx-TMA) diagnosis, which currently lacks standardized criteria. Using the Delphi method for consensus generation, 23 nephropathologists (panelists) with &gt;3 years of diagnostic experience with Tx-TMA were asked to list light, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopic, clinical and laboratory criteria and differential diagnoses for Tx-TMA. Delphi was modified to include 2 validations rounds with histological evaluation of whole slide images of 37 transplant biopsies (28 TMA and 9 non-TMA). Starting with 338 criteria in R1, MDC were narrowed down to 24 in R8 generating 18 pathological, 2 clinical, 4 laboratory criteria, and 8 differential diagnoses. The panelists reached a good level of agreement (70%) on 76% of the validated cases. For the first time in Banff classification, Delphi was used to reach consensus on MDC for Tx-TMA. Phase I of the study (pathology phase) will be used as a model for Phase II (nephrology phase) for consensus regarding clinical and laboratory criteria. Eventually in Phase III (consensus of the consensus groups) and the final MDC for Tx-TMA will be reported to the transplantation community.</p

The Banff 2019 Kidney Meeting Report (I): Updates on and clarification of criteria for T cell– and antibody-mediated rejection

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

Corrigendum: Thrombotic Microangiopathy in the Renal Allograft: Results of the TMA Banff Working Group Consensus on Pathologic Diagnostic Criteria

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11590.]

Corrigendum: Delphi: A Democratic and Cost-Effective Method of Consensus Generation in Transplantation

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2023.11589.]

The Banff 2015 Kidney Meeting Report: Current Challenges in Rejection Classification and Prospects for Adopting Molecular Pathology

The XIII Banff meeting, held in conjunction the Canadian Society of Transplantation in Vancouver, Canada, reviewed the clinical impact of updates of C4d‐negative antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR) from the 2013 meeting, reports from active Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor‐specific antibody tests (anti‐HLA and non‐HLA) with transplant histopathology, and questions of molecular transplant diagnostics. The use of transcriptome gene sets, their resultant diagnostic classifiers, or common key genes to supplement the diagnosis and classification of rejection requires further consensus agreement and validation in biopsies. Newly introduced concepts include the i‐IFTA score, comprising inflammation within areas of fibrosis and atrophy and acceptance of transplant arteriolopathy within the descriptions of chronic active T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) or chronic ABMR. The pattern of mixed TCMR and ABMR was increasingly recognized. This report also includes improved definitions of TCMR and ABMR in pancreas transplants with specification of vascular lesions and prospects for defining a vascularized composite allograft rejection classification. The goal of the Banff process is ongoing integration of advances in histologic, serologic, and molecular diagnostic techniques to produce a consensus‐based reporting system that offers precise composite scores, accurate routine diagnostics, and applicability to next‐generation clinical trials