| Literature DB >> 29540159 |
Michelangelo Nigro1, Davide Viggiano2,3, Vincenzo Ragone1, Tiziana Trabace4,5, Annamaria di Palma5, Michele Rossini5, Giovambattista Capasso4, Loreto Gesualdo5, Giuseppe Gigliotti6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The classical approach to the analysis of kidney biopsies is based on semi-quantitative scores of the amount of sclerosis, inflammatory infiltrate, fibrosis and vascular damage. However, advanced renal lesions may be accompanied by a paucity of clinical features and, conversely, important clinical abnormalities may be accompanied by minimal histopathological changes. The objective of this study is to correlate new, semiautomatic, quantitative features of kidney biopsies (e.g. fractal analysis) with clinical and hematological parameters using a cross-sectional design.Entities:
Keywords: Fractal dimension; Kidney biopsy; Quantitative morphological analysis; Uric acid; Whole section imaging; eGFR
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29540159 PMCID: PMC5853112 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-0846-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Fig. 1Scheme of image analysis. a: desirable correlation between morphological data, clinical data and urinary sediment. b-d: fractal analysis. b: example of a tree fractal structure, c: example of a fractal lumen with recursive undulation of the lumen walls d: real images of tubular lumen in two biopsies with different fractal dimensions. b and c have been drawn using the free internet tool http://recursivedrawing.com/draw.html
Patients characteristics (classified according to the final diagnosis)
| Diagnosis | Hypertensive nephropathy | Diabetic nephropathy | FSGS | IgA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 14 | 18 | 28 | 7 | |
| Age (yrs) | 46 ± 10 | 55 ± 13 | 49 ± 12 | 35 ± 16 | 0.007 (IgA < <all other groups) |
| M/F | 9/5 | 15/3 | 16/12 | 4/3 | |
| Body weight (Kg) | 71 ± 14 | 92 ± 19 | 89 ± 17 | 65 ± 8 | 0.004 (IgA < <all other groups) |
| Urea (mg/dl) | 58 ± 21 | 91 ± 58 | 46 ± 17 | 51 ± 24 | 0.001 (diab> > all other groups) |
| Uric acid (mg/dl) | 6.5 ± 2.2 | 6.7 ± 2.1 | 5.7 ± 1.5 | 6 ± 2 | 0.45 |
| eGFR (ml/min; CKD-EPI) | 49 ± 31 | 46 ± 31 | 70 ± 33 | 82 ± 32 | 0.019 (diab << all other groups) |
| Density of glomeruli (n. glomeruli/mm2) | 2.6 ± 1.3 | 2 ± 1 | 2.3 ± 1.3 | 2 ± 0.6 | 0.58 |
Data represent mean ± SD
Fig. 2Flowchart of the analysis method of the kidney biopsies
Pearson’s correlation coefficients and its significance (in parenthesis) among morphological variables and clinical values (bold indicates significant differences)
| Glomerular density | Number of tubules per glomerulus | Tubular density | Fractal dimension of the tubular lumen | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | − 0.13 ( | 0.13 ( | 0.06 ( | 0.08 ( |
| Body Weight | − 0.11 ( | − 0.3 ( | 0.126 ( | −0.12 ( |
| Urea | −0.16 ( | − 0.06 ( | ||
| Uric acid | 0.03 ( | |||
| eGFR | −0.1 ( | |||
| Proteinuria | −0.57 ( | −0.097 ( | − 0.08 ( | 0.024 ( |
Fig. 3Significant correlations between quantitative morphological data and clinical data in the three groups of patients (FSGS, hypertensive, IgA, diabetes; each dot indicates a subject). The horizontal axis (independent variable) indicates the morphological quantity and the vertical axis the hematological variable. Linear regression lines for each group are superimposed. a serum uric acid level as a function of the tubular density. b-e eGFR as a function of (b) the number of tubules per glomerulus, (c), the glomerular density, (d) the tubular density, (e) fractal dimension. f serum uric acid as a function of the tubular lumen fractal dimension
Correlation coefficient in three subgroups between eGFR, uric acid, glomerular density, tubular density and tubular fractal dimension (bold indicates significant differences)
| Hypertensive | Diabetic | FSGS | IgA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| eGFR vs glomerular density | − 0.09 ( | 0.34 ( | 0.77 ( | |
| eGFR vs tubular density | 0.35 ( | 0.31 ( | 0.26 ( | |
| eGFR vs fractal dimension | 0.5 ( | 0.37 ( | −0.14 ( | |
| Uric acid vs tubular density | − 0.37 ( | 0.28 ( | ||
| Uric acid vs fractal dimension | −0.02 ( | 0.84 ( |
Correlation coefficient between quantitative morphological data and semiquantitative histological indices (bold indicates significant differences)
| Glomerular density | Number of tubules per glomerulus | Tubular density | Fractal dimension of the tubular lumen | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mesangial expansion | −0.2 ( | −0.22 ( | −0.25 ( | |
| Interstitium | −0.34 ( | 0.12 ( |
| |
| Vessels | −0.22 ( | 0.001 ( | −0.31 ( | −0.15 ( |