Abstract
Background
No study has validated, compared and adapted scoring systems for prognosis prediction based on donor kidney core biopsy (CB), with less glomeruli than wedge biopsy.
Methods
A total of 185 donor kidney CB specimens were reviewed using seven scoring systems. The association between the total score, item scores, score-based grading, and allograft prognosis was investigated. In specimens with less than ten glomeruli (88/185, 47.6%), scoring systems were modified by adjusting weights of the item scores.
Results
The Maryland aggregate pathology index (MAPI) score-based grading and periglomerular fibrosis (PGF) associated with delayed graft function (DGF) (Grade: OR = 1.59, p < 0.001; PGF: OR = 1.06, p = 0.006). Total score, score-based grading and chronic lesion score in scoring systems associated with one-year and 3-year eGFR after transplantation. Total-score-based models had similar predictive capacities for eGFR in all scoring systems, except MAPI and Ugarte. Score of glomerulosclerosis (GS), interstitial fibrosis (IF), tubular atrophy (TA), and arteriolar hyalinosis (AH) had good eGFR predictive capacities. In specimens with less than ten glomeruli, modified scoring systems had better eGFR predictive capacities than original scoring systems.
Conclusions
Scoring systems could predict allograft prognosis in paraffin-embedded CB with ten more glomeruli. A simple and pragmatic scoring system should include GS, IF, TA and AH, with weights assigned based on predictive capacity for prognosis. Replacing GS scores with tubulointerstitial scores could significantly improve the predictive capacity of eGFR. The conclusion should be further validated in frozen section.
Author contributions
HZ and JT designed the study and wrote the manuscript. LL and JL analyzed the data. QF, CW and JW collected and evaluated clinical data of donors. RD and BX were responsible for patient follow-up. YL was responsible for making tissue slides and recording pathological data. WC and SY performed the pathological evaluation. SY and CW supervised the research and critically reviewed the paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).