Background: The extent of interstitial fibrosis on kidney biopsy is regarded as a prognostic indicator and guide to treatment. Patients with extensive fibrosis are assigned to supportive treatments with the expectation that they have advanced beyond the point at which immunosuppressive or other disease-modifying therapies would be of benefit. Our study highlights some of the limitations of using interstitial fibrosis to predict who will develop end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods: Analysis of 434 consecutive renal biopsies performed between 2001 and 2012 at a single center. We assessed the influence of various clinical factors along with fibrosis as predictors of ESRD and dialysis-free survival in various patient groups. Results: Interstitial fibrosis performed well overall as a predictor of progression to dialysis. On average, patients with >50% fibrosis progressed more rapidly than those with either 25-49 or 0-24% fibrosis with a median time to dialysis of 1.2, 6.5 and >10 years, respectively. In contrast, interstitial fibrosis was of less value as a predictor of disease progression in a subset of cases that included patients over the age of 70 and those with diabetic nephropathy on biopsy. Surprisingly, 13.9% of patients with normal renal function had 25-49% fibrosis and 5% had more than 50% fibrosis on biopsy, and 5 years after undergoing biopsy 21% of patients with >50% fibrosis still remained dialysis free. Conclusion: Renal fibrosis is an imperfect prognostic indicator for the development of ESRD and caution should be exercised in applying it too rigidly, especially in elderly or diabetic patients.

Keywords:
Chronic kidney disease, End-stage renal disease, Kidney biopsy, Interstitial fibrosis, Prognosis
1.
Kostadinova-Kunovska S, Petrusevska G, Jovanovic R, Grcevska L, Bogdanovska M, Polenakovic M: Morphological changes in the tubulointerstitial compartment in primary glomerulopathies. Prilozi 2007;28:61-74.
2.
Madaio MP: Renal biopsy. Kidney Int 1990;38:529-543.
3.
Serón D, Moreso F, Fulladosa X, Hueso M, Carrera M, Grinyó JM: Reliability of chronic allograft nephropathy diagnosis in sequential protocol biopsies. Kidney Int 2002;61:727-733.
4.
Walsh M, Sar A, Lee D, Yilmaz S, Benediktsson H, Manns B, Hemmelgarn B: Histopathologic features aid in predicting risk for progression of IgA nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:425-430.
5.
Nath KA: Tubulointerstitial changes as a major determinant in the progression of renal damage. Am J Kidney Dis 1992;20:1-17.
6.
Risdon RA, Sloper JC, De Wardener HE: Relationship between renal function and histological changes found in renal-biopsy specimens from patients with persistent glomerular nephritis. Lancet 1968;2:363-366.
7.
Rodríguez-Iturbe B, Johnson RJ, Herrera-Acosta J: Tubulointerstitial damage and progression of renal failure. Kidney Int Suppl 2005;99:S82-S86.
8.
D'Amico G: Influence of clinical and histological features on actuarial renal survival in adult patients with idiopathic IgA nephropathy, membranous nephropathy, and membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis: survey of the recent literature. Am J Kidney Dis 1992;20:315-323.
9.
Meyer TW: Tubular injury in glomerular disease. Kidney Int 2003;63:774-787.
10.
Nagy J, Trinn C, Deák G, Schmelzer M, Burger T: The role of the tubulointerstitial changes in the prognosis of IgA glomerulonephritis. Klin Wochenschr 1984;62:1094-1096.
11.
Wang H, Tomino Y, Fukui M, Shirato I, Yaguchi Y, Ebihara I, Kubota M, Nakayama S, Koide H: Correlation between tubulointerstitial changes and prognosis in patients with primary membranous nephropathy. Nephron 1994;67:362.
12.
Ziyadeh FN: Significance of tubulointerstitial changes in diabetic renal disease. Kidney Int Suppl 1996;54:S10-S13.
14.
Cerqueira DC, Soares CM, Silva VR, Magalhães JO, Barcelos IP, Duarte MG, Pinheiro SV, Colosimo EA, Simões e Silva AC, Oliveira EA: A predictive model of progression of CKD to ESRD in a predialysis pediatric interdisciplinary program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2014;9:728-735.
15.
Tangri N, Stevens LA, Griffith J, Tighiouart H, Djurdjev O, Naimark D, Levin A, Levey AS: A predictive model for progression of chronic kidney disease to kidney failure. JAMA 2011;305:1553-1559.
16.
Mackensen-Haen S, Bader R, Grund KE, Bohle A: Correlations between renal cortical interstitial fibrosis, atrophy of the proximal tubules and impairment of the glomerular filtration rate. Clin Nephrol 1981;15:167-171.
17.
Park MH, D'Agati V, Appel GB, Pirani CL: Tubulointerstitial disease in lupus nephritis: relationship to immune deposits, interstitial inflammation, glomerular changes, renal function, and prognosis. Nephron 1986;44:309-319.
18.
Ballardie FW, Roberts IS: Controlled prospective trial of prednisolone and cytotoxics in progressive IgA nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;13:142-148.
19.
Snoeijs MG, Buurman WA, Christiaans MH, van Hooff JP, Goldschmeding R, van Suylen RJ, Peutz-Kootstra CJ, van Heurn LW: Histological assessment of preimplantation biopsies may improve selection of kidneys from old donors after cardiac death. Am J Transplant 2008;8:1844-1851.
20.
Lee AL, Kim YS, Lim BJ, Jeong HJ, Joo DJ, Kim MS, Huh KH: The impact of time-zero biopsy on early graft outcomes after living donor kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 2013;45:2937-2940.
21.
Sund S, Reisaeter AV, Fauchald P, Bentdal O, Hall KS, Hovig T: Living donor kidney transplants: a biopsy study 1 year after transplantation, compared with baseline changes and correlation to kidney function at 1 and 3 years. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999;14:2445-2454.
22.
Cockfield SM, Moore RB, Todd G, Solez K, Gourishankar S: The prognostic utility of deceased donor implantation biopsy in determining function and graft survival after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2010;89:559-566.
23.
El-Husseini A, Sabry A, Zahran A, Shoker A: Can donor implantation renal biopsy predict long-term renal allograft outcome? Am J Nephrol 2007;27:144-151.
24.
Bohle A, Wehrmann M, Bogenschütz O, Batz C, Müller CA, Müller GA: The pathogenesis of chronic renal failure in diabetic nephropathy. Investigation of 488 cases of diabetic glomerulosclerosis. Pathol Res Pract 1991;187:251-259.
25.
Macías J, Camacho A, Von Wichmann MA, López-Cortés LF, Ortega E, Tural C, Ríos MJ, Merino D, Téllez F, Márquez M, Mancebo M, Pineda JA: Liver stiffness measurement versus liver biopsy to predict survival and decompensations of cirrhosis among HIV/hepatitis C virus-coinfected patients. AIDS 2013;27:2541-2549.
26.
Singh S, Fujii LL, Murad MH, Wang Z, Asrani SK, Ehman RL, Kamath PS, Talwalkar JA: Liver stiffness is associated with risk of decompensation, liver cancer, and death in patients with chronic liver diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:1573-1584; quiz e88-e89.
27.
Awad Mel-D, Shiha GE, Sallam FA, Mohamed A, El Tawab A: Evaluation of liver stiffness measurement by fibroscan as compared to liver biopsy for assessment of hepatic fibrosis in children with chronic hepatitis C. J Egypt Soc Parasitol 2013;43:805-819.
28.
Kim BK, Fung J, Yuen MF, Kim SU: Clinical application of liver stiffness measurement using transient elastography in chronic liver disease from longitudinal perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:1890-1900.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.