Practice Guidelines for the Renal Biopsy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modern Pathology (2004) 17, 1555–1563 & 2004 USCAP, Inc All rights reserved 0893-3952/04 $30.00 www.modernpathology.org Practice guidelines for the renal biopsy Patrick D Walker1, Tito Cavallo2, Stephen M Bonsib3, The Ad Hoc Committee on Renal Biopsy Guidelines of the Renal Pathology Society 1Nephropathology Associates, Little Rock, AR, USA; 2Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati OH, USA and 3Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA Biopsy of the kidney should never be undertaken without careful consideration of the risks vs benefits. Given the importance of a correct diagnosis in the treatment and prognosis of renal disease, the pathological evaluation should use all available modalities. Native kidney biopsies require examination by light microscopy, immunohistochemistry and electron microscopy. The processing of the renal biopsy is complex and requires the support of a fully equipped anatomic pathology laboratory. Technical expertise is required to process the small fragments of tissue and to produce sections of highest quality. The correct diagnosis requires a well- trained renal pathologist with thorough knowledge of not only renal pathology but also renal medicine in order to correlate intricate tissue-derived information with detailed clinical data. In view of the importance and consequences of the pathologic diagnosis, the Renal Pathology Society appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Guidelines, to define the essential ingredients necessary to provide quality renal pathology diagnoses. This document incorporates the consensus opinions of the committee and the RPS membership at large. Modern Pathology (2004) 17, 1555–1563, advance online publication, 23 July 2004; doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800239 Keywords: renal biopsy; glomerulonephritis; allograft; transplant rejection The renal biopsy, though a relatively safe medical refinement. The guidelines would first be reviewed procedure, should be undertaken only after serious by the Executive Board of the Renal Pathology consideration of possible morbidity and rare mor- Society and subsequently submitted to the member- tality that can occur with this invasive technique.1 ship for discussion, debate and suggestions (see the Owing to the nature of the diseases to be detected, contributor list in Acknowledgments). The commit- the sample of renal tissue needs to be examined with tee then revised the guidelines and the process optimal methods to allow for a complete evaluation, would begin anew. The techniques and guidelines including light microscopy (LM), immunohisto- appropriate for adequate evaluation of a renal biopsy chemistry (IHC, includes either immunofluores- and the recommended qualification standards for cence (IF) or immunoperoxidase (IP)) and electron those interpreting renal biopsies presented in the microscopy (EM). The correct diagnosis requires a following sections are the result of this rigorous well-trained renal pathologist with thorough knowl- process. edge of not only renal pathology but also renal medicine in order to correlate intricate tissue- derived information with detailed and sometimes subtle clinical data in order to provide the best Renal biopsy fixation and processing possible clinicopathologic diagnosis or diagnoses. The renal biopsy should be accompanied by ade- The Renal Pathology Society formed an Ad Hoc quate clinical information to enable proper inter- Committee on Renal Biopsy Guidelines to develop pretation of findings. Many laboratories provide a recommendations regarding the processing and special clinical information form to ease the record- evaluation of renal biopsy specimens. This was ing of the overall renal syndrome, symptoms and followed by an intensive several-year period of laboratory data. Although this does not replace direct communication with the submitting physi- cian, this basic medical information provides a good Correspondence: Dr PD Walker, MD, Nephropathology Associ- initial background for overall interpretation of the ates, 10802 Executive Center Drive, Suite 111, Little Rock, AR renal biopsy. The use of a dissecting microscope can 72211, USA. E-mail: [email protected] be of assistance in assessing sample adequacy. Received 29 March 2004; revised 17 June 2004; accepted 24 June Another alternative is the use of a standard light 2004; published online 23 July 2004 microscope. The tissue is placed on a glass slide The renal biopsy PD Walker et al 1556 with normal saline and examined with or without (Figure 2). There are several acceptable appro- a coverslip producing a wet mount.2 A trained aches; laboratories that perform IHC on fixed observer can recognize fat, skeletal muscle, and embedded tissue have even more options. The other nonrenal tissue. Knowledge of the glomerular standard approach is to first procure tissue for EM content of the sample can guide division of tissue for from each core by removing 1 mm cubes from the various histologic modalities (Figure 1). the ends and placing them in formalin, cooled In the absence of direct glomerular visualization, glutaraldehyde or other fixative suitable for EM. a standard protocol for dividing the tissue ob- Some clinicians prefer that the pathology laboratory tained at each ‘pass’ should be used to avoid obtain tissue for EM from the ends of the formalin- inadequate glomerular sampling for LM, IF or EM fixed tissue. Figure 1 Renal biopsy specimen as seen with a dissecting microscope. (a) Renal cortex, note the glomeruli, recognized as round red areas (wet preparation  10). (b) Renal medulla, reddish vasculature is present but no glomeruli seen (wet preparation  10, photographs contributed by Alexis Harris, MD). Modern Pathology (2004) 17, 1555–1563 The renal biopsy PD Walker et al 1557 induced, frozen tissue used for IF can be subse- quently processed for either LM or EM and, depending upon the questions to be addressed, useful information can still be obtained. The biopsy specimen must be handled gently when removed from the biopsy needle; an 18 G needle or a thin wooden stick, for example, a toothpick, is ideal. Normal saline can be also used to wash the sample off the needle. To avoid crush artefact, forceps should not be used. Pulling and stretching the tissue during removal from the needle must also be avoided. Desiccation artefacts and osmotic injury may result from placing the tissue on dry gauze or gauze soaked with water, respectively. Other sources of artefact include freezing the entire sample, or placing the sample in ice-cold saline. If the biopsy cores are sent to the pathology laboratory for division and processing, they may be placed in transport fluid (usually tissue culture medium), physiologic saline-moistened gauze or filter paper carefully folded over the tissue. The sample should be cut with a fresh scalpel or single-edged blade (one that has been cleansed of oil and not been exposed to fixative). The portion for IF is gently picked up with a separate clean tool and placed in transport solution (some centers use tissue culture medium) remaining untouched by formalin or other fixatives. The remainder is placed promptly in fixative for LM and EM because good LM and EM morphology is dependent upon the rapidity of tissue fixation. If the pathology laboratory uses IP instead of IF, biopsy handling is simplified. The material for IP is taken from the formalin-fixed material also used for LM requiring only that the ends of all pieces be saved for EM. Figure 2 Diagram to illustrate division of renal biopsy cores in the absence of a dissecting microscope for laboratories using IF. The ends from all cores are taken for EM with the remainder divided for LM and IF. LM Fixation The most commonly used fixative for LM is buffered, 10% aqueous formaldehyde solution (for- If the specimen is to be sent to a laboratory that malin). Formalin is stable at room temperature, uses IF, the first core can be cut in half by cross- provides acceptable morphology, and allows IHC or sectioning and the larger piece placed in formalin or molecular studies to be performed. Some labora- another fixative suitable for LM; the smaller portion tories prefer alcoholic Bouin’s,3 Duboscq-Brasil4 or is saved for immunofluorescence evaluation. If a Zenker’s fixatives that provide better preservation of second core is obtained, the ends should be taken for certain morphologic details. However, these fixa- EM and the specimen again divided almost in half tives limit recovery of material for EM, IP or with the larger tissue core now kept for IF and the molecular studies, and require additional precau- smaller for LM. Alternatively, if both cores contain tions and handling. Bouin’s and Duboscq-Brasil cortex, one core can used for LM and one core for IF. fluid contain picric acid that is highly explosive Tissue from further passes should be divided to when dry and can be a disposal problem. Some balance whatever was obtained initially. laboratories prefer 4% paraformaldehyde to opti- If tissue is limited, the clinical differential mize tissue suitability for LM, IHC and EM and for diagnosis may drive the division of material, for possible research applications including in situ example, in cases of rapidly progressive glomerulo- hybridization (ISH) studies. Owing to a decrease nephritis, an attempt to secure sufficient material for in polymerization of critical components, this IHC to rule out antiglomerular basement membrane fixative provides