Discrepancy analysis comparing molecular and histology diagnoses in kidney transplant biopsies

Katelynn Madill-Thomsen, Agnieszka Perkowska-Ptasińska, Georg A Böhmig, Farsad Eskandary, Gunilla Einecke, Gaurav Gupta, Philip F Halloran, MMDx-Kidney Study Group, Katelynn Madill-Thomsen, Agnieszka Perkowska-Ptasińska, Georg A Böhmig, Farsad Eskandary, Gunilla Einecke, Gaurav Gupta, Philip F Halloran, MMDx-Kidney Study Group

Abstract

Discrepancy analysis comparing two diagnostic platforms offers potential insights into both without assuming either is always correct. Having optimized the Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) in renal transplant biopsies, we studied discrepancies within MMDx (reports and sign-out comments) and between MMDx and histology. Interpathologist discrepancies have been documented previously and were not assessed. Discrepancy cases were classified as "clear" (eg, antibody-mediated rejection [ABMR] vs T cell-mediated rejection [TCMR]), "boundary" (eg, ABMR vs possible ABMR), or "mixed" (eg, Mixed vs ABMR). MMDx report scores showed 99% correlations; sign-out interpretations showed 7% variation between observers, all located around boundaries. Histology disagreed with MMDx in 37% of biopsies, including 315 clear discrepancies, all with implications for therapy. Discrepancies were distributed widely in all histology diagnoses but increased in some scenarios; for example, histology TCMR contained 14% MMDx ABMR and 20% MMDx no rejection. MMDx usually gave unambiguous diagnoses in cases with ambiguous histology, for example, borderline and transplant glomerulopathy. Histology lesions or features associated with more frequent discrepancies (eg, tubulitis, arteritis, and polyomavirus nephropathy) were not associated with increased MMDx uncertainty, indicating that MMDx can clarify biopsies with histologic ambiguity. The patterns of histology-MMDx discrepancies highlight specific histology diagnoses in which MMDx assessment should be considered for guiding therapy.

Keywords: basic (laboratory) research/science; biopsy; kidney transplantation/nephrology; microarray/gene array; molecular biology; rejection.

© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

References

REFERENCES

    1. Jameson JL, Longo DL. Precision medicine - personalized, problematic, and promising. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2229-2234.
    1. Eskandary F, Regel H, Baumann L, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of bortezomib in late antibody-mediated kidney transplant rejection: the BORTEJECT study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;29(2):591-605.
    1. Reeve J, Böhmig GA, Eskandary F, et al. Generating automated kidney transplant biopsy reports combining molecular measurements with ensembles of machine learning classifiers. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(10):2719-2731.
    1. Nankivell BJ, Alexander SI. Rejection of the kidney allograft. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(15):1451-1462.
    1. Furness PN, Taub N, Assmann KJM, et al. International variation in histologic grading is large, and persistent feedback does not improve reproducibility. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(6):805-810.
    1. O'Connell PJ, Zhang W, Menon MC, et al. Biopsy transcriptome expression profi ling to identify kidney transplants at risk of chronic injury: a multicentre, prospective study. Lancet. 2016;388(10048):983-993.
    1. Van Loon E, Lerut E, Naesens M. The time dependency of renal allograft histology. Transpl Int. 2017;30(11):1081-1091.
    1. Gupta G, Abu Jawdeh BG, Racusen LC, et al. Late antibody-mediated rejection in renal allografts: outcome after conventional and novel therapies. Transplantation. 2014;97(12):1240-1246.
    1. Viklicky O, Hribova P, Brabcova I. Molecular markers of rejection and tolerance: lessons from clinical research. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;28(11):2701-2708.
    1. Halloran PF, Chang J, Famulski K, et al. Disappearance of T cell-mediated rejection despite continued antibody-mediated rejection in late kidney transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(7):1711-1720.
    1. Halloran PF, Famulski KS, Reeve J. Molecular assessment of disease states in kidney transplant biopsy samples. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2016;12(9):534-548.
    1. Reeve J, Böhmig GA, Eskandary F, et al. Assessing rejection-related disease in kidney transplant biopsies based on archetypal analysis of molecular phenotypes. JCI Insight. 2017;2(12):e94197.
    1. Madill-Thomsen KS, Wiggins RC, Eskandary F, Bohmig GA, Halloran PF. The effect of cortex/medulla proportions on molecular diagnoses in kidney transplant biopsies: rejection and injury can be assessed in medulla. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(8):2117-2128.
    1. McAdam AJ. Discrepant analysis: how can we test a test? J Clin Microbiol. 2000;38(6):2027-2029.
    1. Woods SP, Lovejoy DW, Stutts ML, Ball JD, Fals-Stewart W. Comparative efficiency of a discrepancy analysis for the classification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2002;17(4):351-369.
    1. Roulson J, Benbow EW, Hasleton PS. Discrepancies between clinical and autopsy diagnosis and the value of post mortem histology; a meta-analysis and review. Histopathology. 2005;47(6):551-559.
    1. Quinn GE, Ells A, Capone A, et al. Analysis of discrepancy between diagnostic clinical examination findings and corresponding evaluation of digital images in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity study. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016;134(11):1263-1270.
    1. Natarajan N, Dhillon IS, Ravikumar PK, Tewari A. Learning with noisy labels. In: Burges CJC, Bottou L, Welling M, Ghahramani Z, Weinberger KQ, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (NIPS 2013); 2013 December 6. Nevada, USA: Lake Tahoe; 2013.
    1. Rolnick D, Veit A, Belongie S, Shavit N. Deep learning is robust to massive label noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.10694. 2017.
    1. Salazar IDR, Lopez MM, Chang J, Halloran PF. Reassessing the significance of v-lesions in kidney transplant biopsies. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(12):3190-3198.
    1. Reeve J, Sellarés J, Mengel M, et al. Molecular diagnosis of T cell-mediated rejection in human kidney transplant biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(3):645-655.
    1. Ivanyi B, Marcussen N, Olsen S. Tubulitis in primary vascular and glomerular renal disease. Pathol Res Pract. 1995;191(12):1245-1257.
    1. Berden AE, Jones RB, Erasmus DD, et al. Tubular lesions predict renal outcome in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated glomerulonephritis after rituximab therapy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(2):313-321.
    1. Halloran PF, Famulski KS, Chang J. A probabilistic approach to histologic diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(1):129-139.
    1. Reeve J, Halloran PF. Antibody-mediated rejection can be assessed by histology when DSA is unknown or negative. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(S3):608.
    1. Einecke G, Reeve J, Halloran P. TCMR is underdiagnosed in BK virus nephropathy: a tale of 2 populations. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(S5):114.
    1. Halloran PF, Gupta G, Reeve J. Investigators I. The complexity of T cell-mediated rejection scenarios: identifying BK in biopsies with TCMR. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(S3):546.
    1. Drachenberg CB, Papadimitriou JC, Chaudhry MR, et al. Histological evolution of BK virus-associated nephropathy: importance of integrating clinical and pathological findings. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(8):2078-2091.
    1. Halloran PF, Reeve J, Akalin E, et al. Real time central assessment of kidney transplant indication biopsies by microarrays: the INTERCOMEX study. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(11):2851-2862.
    1. Sellarés J, Reeve J, Loupy A, et al. Molecular diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in human kidney transplants. Am J Transplant. 2013;13(4):971-983.
    1. RCT. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018 [updated 2018].
    1. Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University; 2018.
    1. Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: AnRPackage for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw. 2008;25(1):18.
    1. Furness PN, Taub N. International variation in the interpretation of renal transplant biopsies: report of the CERTPAP project. Kidney Int. 2001;60(5):1998-2012.
    1. Haas M, Loupy A, Lefaucheur C, et al. The Banff 2017 Kidney Meeting Report: revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T cell-mediated rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and prospects for integrative endpoints for next-generation clinical trials. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(2):293-307.
    1. Loupy A, Haas M, Solez K, et al. The Banff 2015 kidney meeting report: current challenges in rejection classification and prospects for adopting molecular pathology. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(1):28-41.
    1. Kurian SM, Velazquez E, Thompson R, et al. Orthogonal comparison of molecular signatures of kidney transplants with subclinical and clinical acute rejection: equivalent performance is agnostic to both technology and platform. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(8):2103-2116.
    1. Mehta R, Sood P, Hariharan S. Subclinical rejection in renal transplantation: reappraised. Transplantation. 2016;100(8):1610-1618.
    1. Loupy A, Suberbielle-Boissel C, Hill GS, et al. Outcome of subclinical antibody-mediated rejection in kidney transplant recipients with preformed donor-specific antibodies. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(11):2561-2570.
    1. Hoffman W, Mehta R, Jorgensen DR, et al. The impact of early clinical and subclinical T cell-mediated rejection after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2019;103(7):1457-1467.
    1. Moreso F, Ibernon M, Gomà M, et al. Subclinical rejection associated with chronic allograft nephropathy in protocol biopsies as a risk factor for late graft loss. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(4):747-752.
    1. Nankivell BJ, Chapman JR. The significance of subclinical rejection and the value of protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(9):2006-2012.
    1. Loupy A, Vernerey D, Tinel C, et al. Subclinical rejection phenotypes at 1 year post-transplant and outcome of kidney allografts. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(7):1721-1731.
    1. Kayser D, Mengel M, Gwinner W, et al. Reassessing subclinical rejection using molecular features: typical T cell mediated rejection is rare in protocol biopsies. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(s2):305.
    1. Dieplinger G, Everly MJ, Briley KP, et al. Onset and progression of de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies after BK polyomavirus and preemptive immunosuppression reduction. Transpl Infect Dis. 2015;17(6):848-858.
    1. McGregor SM, Chon WJ, Kim L, Chang A, Meehan SM. Clinical and pathological features of kidney transplant patients with concurrent polyomavirus nephropathy and rejection-associated endarteritis. World J Transplant. 2015;5(4):292-299.
    1. Jain BP. Response to paper on probabilistic diagnosis. Diagnosis (Berl). 2017;4(2):101.
    1. Jain BP. Why is diagnosis not probabilistic in clinical-pathological conference (CPCs): point. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3(3):95-97.
    1. Cahan A. Diagnosis is driven by probabilistic reasoning: counter-point. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3(3):99-101.
    1. Oza NC, Tumer K. Classifier ensembles: select real-world applications. Inform Fusion. 2008;9(1):4-20.
    1. Che D, Liu Q, Rasheed K, Tao X. Decision tree and ensemble learning algorithms with their applications in bioinformatics. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. London: SpringerNature; 2011:191-199.
    1. Dietterich TG, editor. Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning. Multiple Classifier Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2000.
    1. Rokach L. Ensemble methods in supervised learning. In: Maimon O, Rokach L, eds. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook. Boston, MA: Springer, US; 2010:959-979.
    1. Re M, Valentini G (eds). Ensemble methods: a review. Data Mining and Machine Learning for Astronomical Applications. London: Chapman & Hall; 2011:1-40.
    1. Opitz D, Maclin R. Popular ensemble methods: an empirical study. J Artif Intell Res. 1999;11:169-198.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner