C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence

Introduction. Peritubular capillary complement 4d staining is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection, and research into this is essential to kidney allograft evaluation. The immunofluorescence technique applied to frozen sections is the present gold-standard method for complement 4d staining and is used routinely in our laboratory. The immunohistochemistry technique applied to paraffin-embedded tissue may be used when no frozen tissue is available. Material and Methods.The aim of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with immunofluorescence. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the immunohistochemistry vs. the immunofluorescence technique. For this purpose complement 4d staining was performed retrospectively by the two methods in indication biopsies (n=143) and graded using the Banff 07 classification. Results.There was total classification agreement between methods in 87.4% (125/143) of cases. However, immunohistochemistry staining caused more difficulties in interpretation, due to nonspecific staining in tubular cells and surrounding interstitium. All cases negative by immunofluorescence were also negative by immunohistochemistry. The biopsies were classified as positive in 44.7% (64/143) of cases performed byimmunofluorescence vs. 36.4% (52/143) performed by immunohistochemistry. Fewer biopsies were classified as positive diffuse in the immunohistochemistry group (25.1% vs. 31.4%) and more as positive focal (13.2% vs. 11.1%). More cases were classified as negative by immunohistochemistry (63.6% vs. 55.2%). Study by ROC curve showed immunohistochemistry has a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 81.2% in relation to immunofluorescence (AUC: 0.906; 95% confidence interval: 0.846-0.949; p=0.0001). Conclusions.The immunohistochemistry method presents an excellent specificity but lower sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring a more experienced observer than the immunofluorescence method. Based on these results, we conclude that the immunohistochemistry technique can safely be used when immunofluorescence is not available

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Santos,Ana, Viana,Helena, Galvão,Maria João, Carvalho,Fernanda, Nolasco,Fernando
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia 2012
Online Access:http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692012000400006
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S0872-01692012000400006
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S0872-016920120004000062013-03-20C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescenceSantos,AnaViana,HelenaGalvão,Maria JoãoCarvalho,FernandaNolasco,Fernando Antibody-mediated rejection C4d Immunofluorescence Immunohistochemistry kidney allograft Introduction. Peritubular capillary complement 4d staining is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection, and research into this is essential to kidney allograft evaluation. The immunofluorescence technique applied to frozen sections is the present gold-standard method for complement 4d staining and is used routinely in our laboratory. The immunohistochemistry technique applied to paraffin-embedded tissue may be used when no frozen tissue is available. Material and Methods.The aim of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with immunofluorescence. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the immunohistochemistry vs. the immunofluorescence technique. For this purpose complement 4d staining was performed retrospectively by the two methods in indication biopsies (n=143) and graded using the Banff 07 classification. Results.There was total classification agreement between methods in 87.4% (125/143) of cases. However, immunohistochemistry staining caused more difficulties in interpretation, due to nonspecific staining in tubular cells and surrounding interstitium. All cases negative by immunofluorescence were also negative by immunohistochemistry. The biopsies were classified as positive in 44.7% (64/143) of cases performed byimmunofluorescence vs. 36.4% (52/143) performed by immunohistochemistry. Fewer biopsies were classified as positive diffuse in the immunohistochemistry group (25.1% vs. 31.4%) and more as positive focal (13.2% vs. 11.1%). More cases were classified as negative by immunohistochemistry (63.6% vs. 55.2%). Study by ROC curve showed immunohistochemistry has a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 81.2% in relation to immunofluorescence (AUC: 0.906; 95% confidence interval: 0.846-0.949; p=0.0001). Conclusions.The immunohistochemistry method presents an excellent specificity but lower sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring a more experienced observer than the immunofluorescence method. Based on these results, we conclude that the immunohistochemistry technique can safely be used when immunofluorescence is not availableinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSociedade Portuguesa de NefrologiaPortuguese Journal of Nephrology & Hypertension v.26 n.4 20122012-10-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692012000400006en
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Portugal
countrycode PT
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-pt
tag revista
region Europa del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Santos,Ana
Viana,Helena
Galvão,Maria João
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
spellingShingle Santos,Ana
Viana,Helena
Galvão,Maria João
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
author_facet Santos,Ana
Viana,Helena
Galvão,Maria João
Carvalho,Fernanda
Nolasco,Fernando
author_sort Santos,Ana
title C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
title_short C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
title_full C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
title_fullStr C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
title_full_unstemmed C4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
title_sort c4d detection in renal allograft biopsies: immunohistochemistry vs. immunofluorescence
description Introduction. Peritubular capillary complement 4d staining is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection, and research into this is essential to kidney allograft evaluation. The immunofluorescence technique applied to frozen sections is the present gold-standard method for complement 4d staining and is used routinely in our laboratory. The immunohistochemistry technique applied to paraffin-embedded tissue may be used when no frozen tissue is available. Material and Methods.The aim of this study is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry compared with immunofluorescence. We describe the advantages and disadvantages of the immunohistochemistry vs. the immunofluorescence technique. For this purpose complement 4d staining was performed retrospectively by the two methods in indication biopsies (n=143) and graded using the Banff 07 classification. Results.There was total classification agreement between methods in 87.4% (125/143) of cases. However, immunohistochemistry staining caused more difficulties in interpretation, due to nonspecific staining in tubular cells and surrounding interstitium. All cases negative by immunofluorescence were also negative by immunohistochemistry. The biopsies were classified as positive in 44.7% (64/143) of cases performed byimmunofluorescence vs. 36.4% (52/143) performed by immunohistochemistry. Fewer biopsies were classified as positive diffuse in the immunohistochemistry group (25.1% vs. 31.4%) and more as positive focal (13.2% vs. 11.1%). More cases were classified as negative by immunohistochemistry (63.6% vs. 55.2%). Study by ROC curve showed immunohistochemistry has a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 81.2% in relation to immunofluorescence (AUC: 0.906; 95% confidence interval: 0.846-0.949; p=0.0001). Conclusions.The immunohistochemistry method presents an excellent specificity but lower sensitivity to C4d detection in allograft dysfunction. The evaluation is more difficult, requiring a more experienced observer than the immunofluorescence method. Based on these results, we conclude that the immunohistochemistry technique can safely be used when immunofluorescence is not available
publisher Sociedade Portuguesa de Nefrologia
publishDate 2012
url http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0872-01692012000400006
work_keys_str_mv AT santosana c4ddetectioninrenalallograftbiopsiesimmunohistochemistryvsimmunofluorescence
AT vianahelena c4ddetectioninrenalallograftbiopsiesimmunohistochemistryvsimmunofluorescence
AT galvaomariajoao c4ddetectioninrenalallograftbiopsiesimmunohistochemistryvsimmunofluorescence
AT carvalhofernanda c4ddetectioninrenalallograftbiopsiesimmunohistochemistryvsimmunofluorescence
AT nolascofernando c4ddetectioninrenalallograftbiopsiesimmunohistochemistryvsimmunofluorescence
_version_ 1756001660600057856