Export Ready — 

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

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Viana, H
Publication Date: 2009
Other Authors: Carvalho, F, Santos, A, Galvão, MJ, Nolasco, F
Format: Other
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/909
Summary: 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.
id RCAP_77b5aecc2a21cc7d8bb84bea7136d55f
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/909
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs ImmunofluorescenceRimEstudos RetrospectivosBiópsiaImunofluorescênciaSensibilidade e EspecificidadeOBJECTIVES: 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.Laboratório de Morfologia Renal e Serviço de Nefrologia do Hospital Curry CabralRepositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São JoséViana, HCarvalho, FSantos, AGalvão, MJNolasco, F2013-01-02T10:37:41Z20092009-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/909enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-03-06T16:52:50Zoai:repositorio.chlc.pt:10400.17/909Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T00:24:01.580576Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
title C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
spellingShingle C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
Viana, H
Rim
Estudos Retrospectivos
Biópsia
Imunofluorescência
Sensibilidade e Especificidade
title_short C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
title_full C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
title_fullStr C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
title_full_unstemmed C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
title_sort C4d Presence in Kidney Allograft Biopsy: Sensitivity and Specifity of Immunoperoxidase vs Immunofluorescence
author Viana, H
author_facet Viana, H
Carvalho, F
Santos, A
Galvão, MJ
Nolasco, F
author_role author
author2 Carvalho, F
Santos, A
Galvão, MJ
Nolasco, F
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Unidade Local de Saúde São José
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Viana, H
Carvalho, F
Santos, A
Galvão, MJ
Nolasco, F
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Rim
Estudos Retrospectivos
Biópsia
Imunofluorescência
Sensibilidade e Especificidade
topic Rim
Estudos Retrospectivos
Biópsia
Imunofluorescência
Sensibilidade e Especificidade
description 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.
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009
2009-01-01T00:00:00Z
2013-01-02T10:37:41Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format other
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/909
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/909
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Laboratório de Morfologia Renal e Serviço de Nefrologia do Hospital Curry Cabral
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Laboratório de Morfologia Renal e Serviço de Nefrologia do Hospital Curry Cabral
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833600518828589056