Ormonde D G, de Boer W B, Kierath A, Bell R, Shilkin K B, House A K, Jeffrey G P, Reed W D
Department of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
Liver Transpl Surg. 1999 Jul;5(4):261-8. doi: 10.1002/lt.500050418.
An accurate and functional system for grading acute liver allograft rejection is important for patient management, research, and communication. The Banff schema is a consensus document designed to provide an internationally accepted standard for this purpose. The aim of this study is to determine if application of the Banff schema would significantly alter the grading of acute liver allograft rejection compared with the Birmingham system. One hundred twenty-four post-liver transplantation biopsies performed by the Western Australian Liver Transplantation Service between 1992 and 1997 were retrospectively analyzed by a pathologist and a hepatologist. Each was supplied with a brief clinical history before applying the Banff and Birmingham criteria. Results were compared with each other and to the diagnosis made at the time of the biopsy, which was based on the European grading system. Rejection was diagnosed by the reviewers in 61 of 124 biopsy specimens according to the criteria of Snover. The Banff schema and Birmingham system agreed on the grade of rejection in 22 of the 61 biopsy specimens. The Banff schema elevated the grade of rejection in 39 specimens by an increment of one. In no instance did the Banff schema reduce the grade. Comparison between the Banff schema and diagnosis made at the time of biopsy showed agreement in 39 specimens, whereas the Banff schema elevated the grade in 15 specimens and reduced the grade in 23 specimens. In comparison to the Birmingham system, the Banff schema elevated the grade of liver allograft rejection in the majority of biopsy specimens, and this has the potential to alter clinical management with the adoption of the Banff schema or if the systems are used interchangeably.
一个准确且实用的急性肝移植排斥反应分级系统对于患者管理、研究及交流而言至关重要。班夫方案是一份共识文件,旨在为此提供国际公认的标准。本研究的目的是确定与伯明翰系统相比,应用班夫方案是否会显著改变急性肝移植排斥反应的分级。西澳大利亚肝移植服务中心在1992年至1997年间进行的124例肝移植术后活检标本由一名病理学家和一名肝病学家进行回顾性分析。在应用班夫和伯明翰标准之前,分别向他们提供了简要的临床病史。将结果相互比较,并与活检时基于欧洲分级系统做出的诊断进行比较。根据斯诺弗的标准, reviewers在124例活检标本中的61例中诊断出排斥反应。在61例活检标本中的22例中,班夫方案和伯明翰系统对排斥反应的分级意见一致。班夫方案将39例标本的排斥反应分级提高了一级。班夫方案在任何情况下都没有降低分级。班夫方案与活检时做出的诊断之间的比较显示,在39例标本中意见一致,而班夫方案在15例标本中提高了分级,在23例标本中降低了分级。与伯明翰系统相比,班夫方案在大多数活检标本中提高了肝移植排斥反应的分级,这有可能改变临床管理方式,无论是采用班夫方案还是两个系统交替使用。