Controversies in Nephrology Protocol Biopsies: Pros and Cons for Their Use in Routine Treatment of Kidney Transplant Patients

Studies suggest that surveillance or protocol biopsies that are performed during the first year after kidney transplantation may be clinically useful in identifying early acute rejection or chronic allograft nephropathy at a point when they may be amenable to treatment. Although the benefit of this approach has yet to be evaluated in large, multicenter, prospective trials, numerous studies suggest that implementation of protocol biopsies may improve long-term graft function. In particular, a number of reports suggest that detection of chronic allograft nephropathy in early protocol biopsies is predictive of subsequent graft function and loss and that early treatment may have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the graft. Protocol biopsies also have the potential to be of great value in high-risk patients, such as those with delayed graft function, by allowing for early intervention for acute rejection. Furthermore, the procedure seems to be relatively straightforward and safe. Nevertheless, paucity of data has meant that clear proof of a benefit of early treatment of subclinical rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy detected by protocol biopsy is lacking. Moreover, the optimal timing of protocol biopsies and reliable methods to quantify the histologic changes observed in biopsy specimens have yet to be determined. This review discusses the pros and cons of protocol biopsies and considers the place of this procedure in the routine treatment of kidney transplant patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol ●: ●●●–●●●, ●●●●. doi: 10.2215/CJN.00350705