The role of electron microscopy for the diagnosis of glomerulopathies
Keywords:
Electron microscopy, Kidney, Biopsy, Glomerulonephritis, Membranous glomerulonephritisAbstract
CONTEXT: Electron microscopy has been used for the morphological diagnosis of glomerular diseases for more than three decades and its value has been widely emphasized. However, recent reports have analyzed the routine use of electron microscopy critically. Its use in other areas of diagnosis such as tumor diseases has declined considerably; in addition, in view of the unavoidable financial pressure for the reduction of costs due to investigations and diagnostic routines, the selection of cases for electron microscopy has been quite rigorous. OBJECTIVE: To identify the glomerular diseases that depend on electron microscopy for a final diagnosis, by means of reviewing renal biopsies performed over a 12-year period. DESIGN: Prospective SETTING: Hospital Ana Costa, Hospital Guilherme Álvaro and Serviço de Anatomia Patológica de Santos, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: 200 consecutive renal biopsies obtained from private hospitals and the teaching hospital from 1979 to 1991 were studied. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: All cases were analyzed via light microscopy, immunofluorescence and electron microscopy. The diagnosis was first made via light microscopy plus immunofluorescence and then via electron microscopy. RESULTS: Electron microscopy was diagnostic or essential for diagnosis in 10.0% of the cases, corresponding to 3.4% of primary glomerulopathies and 100% of hereditary glomerulopathies. Electron microscopy was contributory (useful) to the diagnosis in 5.5% of the cases, confirming the preliminary diagnosis formulated on the basis of clinical and laboratory data and light microscopy plus immunofluorescence findings. We obtained a 7.5% rate of discordant immunofluorescence, which was considered as such when negative immunofluorescence findings were not confirmed by electron microscopy. The final diagnosis with the use of light microscopy plus immunofluorescence alone was 77.0%. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to diagnose with certainty a great percentage of glomerulopathies (82.5-90% of the cases) based on the light microscopy and immunofluorescence findings alone. Electron microscopy was essential for the diagnosis of hereditary nephropathies.
Downloads
References
Spargo BH. Practical use of electron microscopy for the diag- nosis of glomerular disease. Hum Pathol. 1975;6(4):405-20.
Tucker JA. The continuing value of electron microscopy in sur- gical pathology. Ultrastruct Pathol. 2000;24(6):383-9.
Mierau GW. Electron microscopy for tumour diagnosis: is it redundant? Histopathology. 1999;35(2):99-101.
Kovacs K, Scheithauer BW, Horvath E, Lloyd RV. The World Health Organization classification of adenohypophysial neoplasms. A proposed five-tier scheme. Cancer. 1996;78(3):502-10.
Tighe JR, Jones NF. The diagnostic value of routine electron microscopy of renal biopsies. Proc R Soc Med. 1970;63(5):475-7.
Pearson JM, McWilliam LJ, Coyne JD, Curry A. Value of elec- tron microscopy in diagnosis of renal disease. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47(2):126-8.
Ordonez NG. The use of electron microscopy in Kidney bi- opsy interpretation In: Baur SP, Mackay B, Editors. Diagnostic Electron Microscopy. New York: Appleton Century Crofts; 1981. p.75-129.
Danilewicz M, Wagrowska-Danilewicz M. Glomerular base- ment membrane thickness in primary diffuse IgA nephropa- thy: ultrastructural morphometric analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 1998;30(4):513-9.
Radford MG, Donadio JV, Holley KE, Björnsson J, Grande JP. Renal biopsy in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc. 1994; 69(10):983-4.
Choi YJ, Lee JD, Yang RH, et al. Immunotactoid glome- rulopathy associated with idiopathic hypereosinophilic syn- drome. Am J Nephrol. 1998;18(4):337-43.
Schwartz MM. The pathologic diagnosis of renal disease. In: Jennette JC, Olson JL, Schwartz MM, Silva FG, editors. Heptinstall’s Pathology of the kidney. 5th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1998. p. 169-80.
Iversen P, Brun C. Aspiration biopsy of the kidney. Am J Med. 1951;11(3):324-30.
Habib R, Gonzalès-Burchard G. Glomérulonéphrite aiguë post- infectieuse. In: Royer P, Habib R, Mathieu H, Broyer M, edi- tors. ephrologie pediatrique. 3rd edition. Paris: Flammarion Medicine-Sciences; 1983. p. 294-305.
Raine AE. Renal biopsy and the prognosis of lupus nephritis. Q J Med. 1991;81(295):879-81.
Grande JP, Balow JE. Renal biopsy in lupus nephritis. Lupus. 1998;7(9):611-7.
Osterby R. Lessons from kidney biopsies. Diabetes Metab Rew. 1996;12(3):151-74.
Dische FE. Measurement of glomerular basement membrane thickness and its application to the diagnosis of thin-membrane nephropathy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116(1):43-9.
Muehrcke RC, Mandal AK, Gotoff SP, Isaacs EW, Volini FI. The clinical value of electron microscopy in renal disease. Arch Intern Med. 1969;124(2):170-6.
Siegel NJ, Spargo BH, Kashgarian M, Hayslett JP. An evalua- tion of routine electron microscopy in the examination of renal biopsies. Nephron. 1973;10(4):209-15.
Ben-Bassat M, Stark H, Robson M, Rosenfeld J. Value of rou- tine electron microscopy in the differential diagnosis of the nephrotic syndrome. Pathol Microbiol. 1974;41(1):26-40.
Dische FE, Parsons V. Experience in the diagnosis of glomeru- lonephritis using combined light microscopical, ultrastructural and immunofluorescence techniques: an analysis of 134 cases. Histopathology. 1977;1(5):331-62.
Collan Y, Klockars M, Heino M. Revision of light microscopic kidney biopsy diagnosis in glomerular disease. Nephron. 1978;20(1):24-31.
Skjorten F, Halvorsen S. A study of the value of resin-embedded semi-thin sections and electron microscopy in the diagnosis of re- nal biopsies. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1981;89(4):257-62.
