C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the sensitivity/specificity of immunoperoxidase method in comparison with the standard immunofluorescence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 87 biopsies made for allograft dysfunction. Immunofluorescence (IF) was performed in frozen allograft biopsies using monoclonal antibody anti-C4d from Quidel®. The indirect immunoperoxidase (IP) technique was performed in paraffin-embebbed tissue with polyclonal antiserum from Serotec®. Biopsies were independently evaluated by two nephropathologist according Banff 2007 classification. RESULTS: By IF, peritubular C4d deposition were detected in 60 biopsies and absent in 27 biopsies. The evaluation of biopsy by IP was less precise due to the presence of background and unspecific staining. We find 13.8% (12/87) of false negative and Banff classification concordance in 79.3% (69/87) of cases (table1). The ROC curve study reveal a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 80.0 % of IP method in relation to the gold standard (area under curve:0.900; 95% Confidence interval :0.817-0.954; p=0.0001). Banff Classification C4d Cases Immunofluorescence Immunoperoxidase n =87 Diffuse Negative 3 (3.4%) Focal Negative 9 (10.3%) Negative Negative 27 (31.0%) Diffuse Diffuse 33 (37.9%) Focal Focal 9 (10.3%) Diffuse Focal 6 (6.9%) CONCLUSION: The IP method presents a good specificity, but lesser sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring more experience of the observer than IF method. If frozen tissue is unavailable, the use of IP for C4d detection is acceptable