3. .
The Banff Schema
was first developed
by a group of pathologists,
nephrologists, and transplant surgeons at a
meeting in Banff Canada August 2-4, 1991..
It has continued to evolve through meetings every
two years and has become the worldwide standard for
interpretation of transplant biopsies.
4. A moderated self-organizing group to define and
standardize organ allograft biopsy interpretation
Aim is to promote international uniformity in
reporting allograft pathology, which is necessary for
research, clinical trials, and standardized patient
management
International and inter-disciplinary process with
meetings every 2 years
Mini-review “The Banff Classification Revisited”
(Solez, K. and Racusen, L.C.) will be appearing in
Kidney International later this year.
Singularity
Course
5. In 1990 all standard textbooks were inaccurate in
interpretation of kidney transplant biopsies
◦ Suggesting, for example, that arteritis meant that the
kidney was doomed and antirejection treatment should
be abandoned
It became imperative for the field to correct this
and standardize interpretation
Singularity
Course
6. • Began in kidney (Solez
et al. 1993), and was
then extended to liver,
pancreas, composite
tissue grafts etc.
Meetings also consider
heart, lung, small bowel.
• Uses semi-quantitative
lesion scoring 0-3+ and
diagnostic categories.
7. Normal
Antibody-mediated rejection,
Borderline changes: ‘Suspicious’ for acute cellular
rejection
T-cell-mediated rejection (may coincide with
categories 2 and 5 and 6)
Sclerosis, interstitial fibrosis, and tubular atrophy,
no evidence of any specific etiology
Other changes not considered to be due to
rejection
9. Genome Canada
transplant transcriptome project.
Affymetrix GeneChip® probe array.
Image courtesy of Affymetrix.
Traditional pathology techniques.
10.
11. 1991 First Conference
1993 First Kidney International publication
1995 Integration with CADI
1997 Integration with CCTT classification
1999 Second KI paper. Clinical practice guidelines. Implantation biopsies,
microwave.
2001 Classification of antibody-mediated rejection
◦ Regulatory agencies participating
2003 Genomics focus, ptc cell accumulation scoring
2005 Gene chip analysis. Elimination of CAN, identification of chronic
antibody-mediated rejection.
2007 First meeting far from a town called “Banff” – La Coruna, Spain.
2009 Working groups. Meeting in Banff, Alberta, Canada for last time until
2015!
Singularity
Course
12. 86% Kidney clinical
6% Liver clinical Most articles are in high quality journals
5% Kidney experimental with impact factor of 3.2 or higher,
1% Liver experimental one third have impact factors of 6-9.
13. The Banff meeting reports and main meeting
papers have been cited 4,312 times in the
medical literature.
The 1999 paper The Banff 97 Working
Classification of Renal Allograft Pathology
Kidney International 55(2):713-23, 1999 by
Racusen, Solez, and Colvin et al. is a citation
classic in the field having been cited 1,764
times.
Singularity
Course
14. Classification begun at 1991 Banff meeting has
become the worldwide standard, and the
consensus process has now extended to all solid
organs. Future meetings are planned every two
years through 2019.
Standardization principles now being extended
from biopsy reporting to tissue typing, imaging, all
the other elements in transplant care.
Classification used in clinical trials, and by the
FDA, mandatory evaluation for drug approvals.
Singularity
Course
15. Banff Working Groups:
Addressing unmet needs in a data-driven, evidence based approach
Sis et al. 2009 Banff Meeting Report, Am J Transplant. 2010 Mar;10(3):464-71
Isolated v-lesion
Working Group
Fibrosis Scoring IHC Quality Assurance
Working Group Working Group
Data-driven & Validated
Refinement of the
Banff Guidelines
Glomerular Lesion Polyoma Virus Nephropathy
Working Group Working Group
C4d-Negative ABMR
Working Group
16. Isolated V lesion – Banu Sis and Ed Kraus
Fibrosis scoring – Robert Colvin
Polyoma virus staging – Volker Nickeleit
Glomerular lesion scoring – Mark Haas
Molecular pathology – Phil Halloran
Quality assurance IHC – Michael Mengel
C4d neg. Ab-Mediated Rejection – Banu Sis
History&Impact of Banff Process – Kim Solez
Singularity
Course
17. 1.Defining appropriate thresholds for
microvascular injury and for DSA that provide
an optimal balance of specificity and sensitivity
for ABMR, noting that none of these
morphologic changes are specific and that not
all patients with DSA have ABMR.
2. Defining "C4d-negative". There is some
evidence that focal C4d is often (though less so
than diffuse C4d) associated with DSA and
microvascular injury.
Singularity
Course
18. 3.
Defining acute versus chronic/active Ab-
mediated rejection.
4.Defining the significance of intimal arteritis
(in the absence of necrosis) as histologic
evidence for Ab-mediated rejection.
Singularity
Course
19. Includes analysis of physician facilitation of consensus discussions, seen most recently in
Bob Colvin’s C4d discussions and in Michael Mengel’s organization of Banff Working Groups.
Also includes analysis of future trends and developments.
20. Future concepts of where
technology is taking us are
incorporated into long term
planning of Banff Process.
Will be part of 2013 meeting in
Brazil.
21. • Until now we have
had none beyond Drs.
Racusen and Solez.
• Will form Swiss
foundation legal entity
in 2012, to enable us
to enter into formal
relationships with
other organizations
we cannot do now.
22.
23. To lead development and dissemination of the
international Banff Classification of Allograft
Pathology and to facilitate multidisciplinary,
collaborative research to enhance its scientific
basis and clinical utility to improve the care of
transplant patients.
Singularity
Course
24. Facilitation of knowledge generation and translation in
transplantation pathology with the ultimate aim to
improve patient outcome
Maintaining the Banff spirit of a multinational,
multidisciplinary consensus group
Fundraising
Guidance and financial support for Working Group
activities
Guidance and financial support for Banff meetings
activities
Singularity
Course
25. Responsible for annual reports of the Foundation and adherence to
Swiss law
Fiduciary responsibility for foundation funds
Final responsibility for selection and content of Banff meetings
Support and guide Working Group activities
External representation of the Banff process: fundraising, policy
papers, set up, content, and maintenance of a Banff website
Bidirectional communication to membership of the Banff community
Composition:
◦ The BOD consists of 6-9 members, including the Chair.
◦ Members are selected by majority vote of the BOD and serve for a 3 year
term, renewable once. Terms are staggered (3 selected each year).
◦ The Chair and Secretary/Treasurer are selected by a majority vote of the
BOD and serve for a 3 year term, renewable once.
◦ Vacancies filled by majority vote of BOD.
Singularity
Course
26. Secretary/Treasurer
◦ Responsible for day-to-day business/activities of the Banff Foundation
and annual reporting
◦ Is a member of the board and regularly reports to the other board
members
◦ Prepares annual budget and projections
◦ Monitors expenses
◦ Works closely with the administrative team
Flow and handling of funds through the
A foundation should generate funding from whatever sources over its
lifetime, to fulfil its purpose; which in this case would be to run Banff
meetings and to foster advances organ transplantation
Therefore the recommendation is to run any money e.g. from a
pharmaceutical company into the Swiss Foundation, which then will at
the Board of Trustees instruction transferred to a trusted organising
committee, e.g. a University or Society account from local Banff meeting
organizers , or Banff working group leaders for supporting their activities
27. Organization of meetings together with local organizers
Organization of cross-organ plenary sessions
Program finalization according to input from Organ
Steering committees
Selection of speakers and moderators
Support and coordination of preparation of meeting
reports
Terms of references:
◦ Appointed by the BOD
◦ terms of membership four years (i.e. two meetings), renewable
through majority vote of the board
Singularity
Course
28. Should engage pathologists and clinicians as well as
representative from major geographic regions (e.g.
North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa,
Australia)
Fund raising for the meetings and consensus work
should also be scope for the organ steering committee
members
Organization of organ specific sessions: selection of
topics and speakers
Preparation of organ specific meeting reports
Terms of reference:
◦ Leadership appointed by the board of directors for four years (i.e.
two meetings), renewable through majority vote of the board
◦ Otherwise self-organized
Singularity
Course