Pathology Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13664.6812
Year : 2015 | Month : Nov | Volume : 9 | Issue : 11 Page : EC17 - EC20

Histological and Clinicopathological Evaluation of Liver Allograft Biopsy: An Initial Experience of Fifty Six Biopsies

K.V. Kanodia1, A.V. Vanikar2, P.R. Modi3, R.D. Patel4, K. S. Suthar5, L. K. Nigam6, H. L. Trivedi7

1 Professor, Department of Pathology, Lab Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
2 Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
3 Professor, Department of Transplantation Surgery and Urology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
4 Professor, Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
5 Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
6 Junior Lecturer, Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.
7 Professor, Department of Nephrology and Transplantation Medicine and Director, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. K.V. Kanodia, Professor, Department of Pathology, Lab Medicine, Transfusion Services and Immunohematology, G.R. Doshi and K.M. Mehta Institute of Kidney Diseases & Research Centre and Dr. H.L. Trivedi Institute of Transplantation Sciences, Civil Hospital Campus, Asarwa, Ahmedabad, India. E-mail : kamalkanodia@yahoo.com, ikdrcad1@sancharnet.in
Abstract

Introduction

Liver biopsy is gold standard for diagnosis of allograft dysfunction.

Aim

The aim of study was to evaluate liver allograft biopsies performed for graft dysfunction, study the pattern of injury and intensity, and timeline of occurrence of graft dysfunction.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective study was carried out of 56 liver allograft biopsies and their histological findings with clinical presentation were correlated. Totally 56 needle liver allograft biopsies from January 1210 to July 2014, obtained from 35 patients were studied for histological and clinicopathological evaluation.

Results

The mean age was 53.2±5.48 years. The most common original disease was alcoholic cirrhosis. The most common histological lesion was acute cellular rejection (ACR) in 31 (55.36%) biopsies followed by preservation-reperfusion injury (PRI) in 10 (17.86%) biopsies and drug toxicity in 8 (14.29%) biopsies. Chronic rejection was reported in 2 (3.57%) and recurrence of HCV in 3 (5.36%). Ischemic coagulative necrosis and acute cholangitis were seen in 1 (1.79 %) case each.

Conclusion

Alcoholic cirrhosis was the most common etiology for end stage liver disease. ACR and PRI were the major complications in liver allograft biopsies at our centre.

Introduction

Liver transplantation is the main therapeutic option for patients with end-stage liver diseases (ESLD) [1]. Pathological evaluation of the liver allograft biopsies plays an integral role in the management of liver allograft recipients [2]. Liver allograft biopsies are performed in response to changes in liver enzyme levels, abnormality in liver function parameters, imaging or functional abnormalities and as follow up or protocol biopsies [3].

Materials and Methods

Retrospective study was carried out from January 2010 to July 2014. A total of 57 needle biopsies were obtained from 35 patients. One biopsy was inadequate hence, it was excluded. All biopsies were performed under ultrasound guidance using 18 gauge liver biopsy needle. Specimen was fixed in 10% buffered formaldehyde and embedded in paraffin-wax. Paraffin sections were cut at 3 μm thicknesses and stained with Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E), Periodic Acid Schiff (PAS), Gomori’s trichrome (GMT), Prussian blue, orcein and reticulin. Immunohistochemical studies such as cytokeratins CK 7/19 (epithelial markers to show bile ducts), CMV (Cytomegalovirus), HBV (Hepatitis B virus) were carried out if needed. The biopsy was considered adequate if six portal tracts were identified in one section.

Preservation-reperfusion injury (PRI) was characterized by liver-cell ballooning and centrilobular cholestasis. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) was characterized by predominant portal-based lesions, including the classical triad of mixed inflammatory cell infiltrates, venous endothelial inflammation and inflammatory infiltration of bile ducts. Chronic rejection (CR) was characterized by ductopenia and obliterative arteriopathy. HCV recurrence was characterized by portal lymphoid follicle, focal duct damage and mild fatty changes.

Statistical Analysis

Data was collected using IBM SPSS 20. Continuous data was expressed as mean ± SD and range. Non-continuous data was expressed in percentage and numerical values.

Results

Out of 83 liver allograft recipients, 35 recipients were subjected to 57 needle biopsies. One (1.75%) biopsy was inadequate, thus 56 biopsies were considered for study. Out of 35 patients, 22 patients were subjected to single biopsy procedure, 7 patients were subjected to biopsy twice; 3 patients were subjected to biopsy thrice; and 3 patients were subjected to biopsy four times. The distribution of liver biopsies performed in each year is illustrated in [Table/Fig-1].

Depicting frequency of biopsies performed annually

Out of 35 recipients 26 were males and 9 were females. The mean age was 53.2 ± 5.48 years. In laboratory parameters, the mean serum bilirubin was 5.54 ± 7.2 mg/dl, Alanine Transaminase (ALT) was 298 ± 566 IU/L, Aspartate Transaminase (AST), 197 ± 287 IU/L and Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) was 256 ± 188 IU/L [Table/Fig-2].

Demographics of patients subjected to liver allograft biopsies

M/F26/09
Age (years)53.2±5.48
S.Bilirubin (mg/dl)5.54 ± 7.2
ALT (IU/L)298 ± 566
AST (IU/L)197 ± 287
ALP (IU/L)256 ± 188

The most common indications of liver transplant were alcoholic cirrhosis in 9 (25.71%), cryptogenic cirrhosis in 6 (17.14%), HBV in 6 (17.14%), Wilson disease in 4 (11.42%) and HCV in 3 (8.57%) patients. Decompensated cirrhosis and autoimmune hepatitis were reported in 2 (5.71%) each. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and Primary Hyperoxaluria was noted in 1 (2.85%) each [Table/Fig-3]

Common indications of liver transplant

Cause of Transplantn=35Percentage %
Alcoholic cirrhosis925.71
Cryptogenic617.14
HBV617.14
WILSON411.42
HCV38.57
Decompensated cirrhosis25.71
Auto immunehepatitis25.71
NASH12.85
PSC12.85
Primary Oxalosis12.85

The histological lesions are presented in [Table/Fig-4]. Postoperative time interval for biopsy ranged from first postoperative day to 980 days post-transplant. The most common lesion was ACR [Table/Fig-5] reported in 31 (55.36%) biopsies and intensity ranged from mild ACR in 17 (54.83%), moderate ACR in 12 (38.71 %) and severe ACR in 2 (6.45 %) biopsies [Table/Fig-6]. Twenty three (74%) biopsies with diagnosed ACR were obtained within 180 days post transplant and 8 (26%) were obtained after 180 days post transplant.

Histological diagnosis

DiagnosisBiopsy(n=56)Percentage(%)Daysmean ± SDRange(days)
ACR3155.36140.94 ±208.797- 980
PRI1017.8624 ± 19.25-56
Drug toxicity814.29265.12 ± 146.272-431
HCV recurrence35.36268.7 ± 31426-712
CR23.57247 ±61.5203-290
Acute cholangitis11.7927
Ischemic Necrosis11.791

Acute cellular rejection observed 1 month Post-Transplantation, diagnosed by presence of mixed cellular inflammatory infiltrate in portal area along with bile duct infiltration and venous endothelial inflammation, (H&E, X 400)

Duration and types of ACR

ACRNumberPercentage (%)DaysPercentage %
180 days2374 %
≥ 180 days826 %
MILD (RAI 3-4)1754.83 %175.94 ± 234.8811-980
MODERATE (RAI5-6)1238.71 %89.75 ± 159.117-529
SEVERE (RAI ≥ 7)26.45 %150.5 ± 197.2811-290

PRI or functional cholestasis was observed in 10 (17.86%) biopsies [Table/Fig-7] and drug toxicity [Table/Fig-8] in 8 (14.29%) biopsies. CR [Table/Fig-9] was observed in 2 (3.57%) biopsies performed on day 203 and day 290 posttransplant. HCV recurrence was reported in 3 (5.36%) biopsies. Ischemic coagulative necrosis was observed in one (1.79 %) biopsy on first post-transplant day. Acute cholangitis was also seen in one (1.79 %) biopsy 27 days posttransplant.

Preservation reperfusion injury observed in 5 Days old liver allograft, depicted by liver-cell ballooning and centrilobular cholestasis, (H&E, X 400)

Drug toxicity depicted by microvesicular steatosis in a biopsy performed at 1 year post- transplantation (H&E, X 200)

Chronic rejection at 290 days post-transplant, characterized by marked bile duct epithelial damage and ductopenia (depicted by circle) (H&E, X 200)

Discussion

Liver biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis of allograft dysfunction [4]. Male patients outnumbered females in our study. Indication of the liver biopsies in our study was mainly elevated liver enzymes and/or serum bilirubin. Alcoholic cirrhosis was the most common cause for liver transplant in the present study. However, others have reported HCV as the major cause of ESLD requiring transplantation [5,6]. The histological pattern of acute rejection was first described by Snover et al., [7]. ACR was graded according to Banff schaema for grading liver allograft rejection-1997 [6]. Criteria for evaluating CR was based on Banff Schaema published in 2000 [8].

ACR (55.36%) was the most common histological lesion in our study. Similar results were reported in other studies [1,911]. ACR was graded into mild, moderate and severe according to Rejection activity index (RAI) [12]. Mild ACR was the most common finding followed by moderate and severe ACR. Similar results were reported in other studies also [11,13]. In our study earliest and late ACR were reported at 7th and 980th day posttransplant respectively. Factors determining the incidence of ACR include type of immunosuppression, perioperative factors (ischaemia, infections) and donor characteristics (including age, cadaveric versus living, etc) [3,1419].

CR is characterized by presence of ductopenia and foamy cell arteriopathy. In our study, the incidence of CR was 3.57%. Other authors have also reported the incidence of CR as 3% in liver allograft recipients [20,21]. Reasons for low incidence of CR are the unique immunologic properties of the liver and better recognition and control of acute rejection, but they may also be related to the remarkable regenerative capabilities [22,23]. The occurrence of CR is due to repeated ACR, CMV infection, high donor age, long cold ischaemic period and inadequate/suboptimum immunosuppression or poor compliance [3,20,24].

PRI occurs during organ harvesting. The factors responsible for PRI include donor and recipient hypotension, warm/cold ischemia and reperfusion injury [3]. In our study PRI was observed in 17.8% cases within 5-56 days post-transplant. It varies from 7-26 % in different published studies [1,10,25]. In mild PRI predominant features are microvesicular steatosis, mid zone 3 hepatocellular swelling, canalicular cholestasis and in severe injury centrilobular hepatocellular swelling, necrosis and cholestasis [1].

Hepatitis C recurrence is nearly universal after transplantation. The posttransplant course of hepatitis C is associated with a more rapid progression of fibrosis than in the native liver, with the development of cirrhosis after 5 years in 28% of cases [26]. Samuel D et al., mentioned that early recognition and intervention of recipients with rapidly evolving recurrent hepatitis C following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) is the only practical approach to improve outcome of these patients [27]. HCV recurrence was reported 66.67% in present study. Out of 3 patients of HCV, 2 patients developed HCV recurrence. Drug toxicity was reported in 8 (14.29%) cases. The biopsy findings included mainly microvesicular steatosis and cholestasis. The main therapeutic drugs were corticosteroids, azathioprine and cyclosporine/tacrolimus. Similar findings were reported by others [1,28]. The antibiotics such as sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprime and amoxicillin in patients after liver transplantation are also associated with drug-induced cholestasis [10,29,30].

One case of acute cholangitis secondary to hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) on 27 days post transplant was also reported. Yu YY et al has mentioned that intrahepatic biliary injury (IBI) is characterized by non-anastomotic biliary strictures and is a relatively late complication, usually diagnosed between 1 and 4 months after liver transplantation [1]. IBI is associated with ischemia, secondary to HAT, ABO incompatible blood group donors, and chronic ductopenic rejection as well as prolonged warm or cold ischemic time prior to implantation [1,3134].

Conclusion

Alcoholic cirrhosis was the most common indication of liver transplantation in our centre. ACR and PRI were the major complication in early liver allograft dysfunction.

To our knowledge this is the first study of its kind in India and will be helpful for framing of therapeutic guidelines. It is our initial experience of four years and requires further study to know the prevalence of chronic rejection and recurrence of disease in liver transplantation.

References

[1]Yu YY, Ji J, Zhou GW, Shen BY, Chen H, Yan JQ, Liver biopsy in evaluation of complications following liver transplantation World J Gastroenterol 2004 10:1678-81.  [Google Scholar]

[2]Coffin CS, Burak KW, Hart J, Gao ZH, The impact of pathologist experience on liver transplant biopsy interpretation Modern Pathology 2006 19:832-38.  [Google Scholar]

[3]Adeyi O, Fischer SE, Guindi M, Liver allograft pathology: approach to interpretation of needle biopsies with clinicopathological correlation J Clin Pathol 2010 63:47-74.  [Google Scholar]

[4]Portmann B, Liver allograft pathology and biopsy interpretation Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 2004 88:29-38.  [Google Scholar]

[5]Abouljoud MS, Escobar F, Douzdjian V, Recurrent disease after liver transplantation Transplant Proc 2001 33:2716-19.  [Google Scholar]

[6]Kotlyar DS, Campbell MS, Reddy KR, Recurrence of diseases following orthotopicliver transplantation Am J Gastroenterol 2006 101:1370-78.  [Google Scholar]

[7]Snover DC, Sibley RK, Freese DK, Orthotopic liver transplantation: a pathological study of 63 serial liver biopsies from17 patients with special reference to the diagnostic features and natural history of rejection Hepatology 1984 4:1212  [Google Scholar]

[8]Demetris A, Adams D, Bellamy C, Update of the International Banff Schaema for Liver Allograft Rejection: working recommendations for the histopathologic staging and reporting of chronic rejection. An International Panel Hepatology 2000 31(3):792-99.  [Google Scholar]

[9]Geramizadeh B, Motevalli D, Nikeghbalianet S, Histopathology of Post-Transplant Liver Biopsies, the First Report From Iran Hepat Mon 2013 13(6):e9389  [Google Scholar]

[10]Cong WM, Zhang SY, Wang ZL, Pathologic diagnosis of 1123 post-transplant liver biopsies from 665 liver transplant patients Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 2005 34(11):716-19.  [Google Scholar]

[11]Gornicka B, Ziarkiewicz-Wroblewska B, Bogdanska M, Pathomorphological features of acute rejection in patients after orthotopic liver transplantation: own experience Transplant Proc 2006 38(1):221-25.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Demetris AJ, Batts KP, Dhillon AP, Banff schaema for grading liver allograft rejection: an international consensus document Hepatology 1997 25(3):658-63.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Demetris AJ, Ruppert K, Dvorchik Real-time monitoring of acute liver-allograft rejection using Banff schaema Transplantation 2002 74:1290  [Google Scholar]

[14]Desai M, Neuberger J, Chronic liver allograft dysfunction Transplant Proc 2009 41:773-76.  [Google Scholar]

[15]Fisher LR, Henley KS, Lucey MR, Acute cellular rejection after liver transplantation: variability, morbidity, and mortality Liver Transpl Surg 1995 1:10-5.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Florman S, Schiano T, Kim L, The incidence and significance of late acute cellular rejection (1000 days) after liver transplantation Clin Transplant 2004 18:152-5.  [Google Scholar]

[17]Shaked A, Ghobrial RM, Merion RM, Incidence and severity of acute cellular rejection in recipients undergoing adult living donor or deceased donor liver transplantation Am J Transplant 2009 9:301-08.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Tippner C, Nashan B, Hoshino K, Clinical and subclinical acute rejection early after liver transplantation: contributing factors and relevance for the long-term course Transplantation 2001 72:1122-28.  [Google Scholar]

[19]Yilmaz F, Aydin U, Nart D, The incidence and management of acute andchronic rejection after living donor liver transplantation Transplant Proc 2006 38:1435-37.  [Google Scholar]

[20]Wiesner RH, Batts KP, Krom RA, Evolving concepts in the diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment of chronic hepatic allograft rejection Liver Transpl Surg 1999 5:388-400.  [Google Scholar]

[21]Neuhaus P, Langrehr JM, Williams R, Tacrolimus-based immunosuppression after liver transplantation: a randomized study comparing dual versus triple low-dose oral regimens Transpl Int 1997 10:253-61.  [Google Scholar]

[22]Sher LS, Cosenza CA, Michel J, Efficacy of tacrolimus as rescue therapy for chronic rejection in orthotopic liver transplantation: a report of the U.S. Multicenter Liver Study Group Transplantation 1997 64:258-63.  [Google Scholar]

[23]Blakolmer K, Seaberg EC, Batts K, Analysis of the reversibility ofchronic liver allograft rejection implications for a staging schaema Am J Surg Pathol 1999 23:328-39.  [Google Scholar]

[24]Demetris AJ, Distinguishing between recurrent primary sclerosing cholangitis andchronic rejection Liver Transpl 2006 12(11):S68-72.  [Google Scholar]

[25]Busquets J, Figueras J, Serrano T, Postreperfusion biopsies are useful in predicting complications after liver transplantation Liver Transpl 2001 7:432-35.  [Google Scholar]

[26]Pessoa M, Terrault N, Ferrell L, Hepatitis after liver transplantation: the role of known and unknown viruses Liver Transpl Surg 1998 4:461-68.  [Google Scholar]

[27]Samuel D, Forns X, Berenguer M, Reportof the monothaematic EASL conference on liver transplantation for viral hepatitis Hepatol 2006 45:127-43.  [Google Scholar]

[28]Farrell GC, Drugs and steatohepatitis Semin Liver Dis 2002 22:185-94.  [Google Scholar]

[29]Mohi-ud-din R, Lewis JH, Drug-and chemical-induced cholestasis Clin Liver Dis 2004 8(1):95-132.  [Google Scholar]

[30]Studniarz M, Czubkowski P, Cielecka-Kuszyk J, Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid-induced cholestatic liver injury after pediatric liver transplantation Ann Transplant 2012 17(1):128-31.  [Google Scholar]

[31]Rull R, Garcia Valdecasas JC, Grande L, Intrahepatic biliary lesions after orthotopic liver transplantation Transplt Int 2001 14:129-34.  [Google Scholar]

[32]Huang XQ, Huang ZQ, Duan WD, Severe biliary complications after hepatic artery embolization World J Gastroenterol 2002 8:119-23.  [Google Scholar]

[33]Abt P, Crawford M, Desai N, Liver transplantation from controlled non-heart-beating donors: an increased incidence of biliary complications Transplantation 2003 75:1659-63.  [Google Scholar]

[34]Jagannath S, Kalloo AN, Biliary Complications after liver transplantation Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2002 5:101-12.  [Google Scholar]