A comparison of 1995 WHO classification with 2003 ISN/RPS classification of XXXX : a single centre observation.

@entity1988 @entity1 @entity1310
BACKGROUND: In the past, @entity1988 was histologically classified according to the 1995 WHO Classification. With the introduction of the 2003 ISN/RPS Classification, many nephropathology services converted to this new classification. This study was undertaken to compare both classification systems in a single centre practice. METHODS: 103 consecutive adequate renal biopsies initially reported as @entity1988 in the Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya were reassessed using the criteria of both the 1995 WHO Classification and the 2003 ISN/ RPS Classification. RESULTS: The relative prevalence for each class using the WHO Classification were: Class I (1%), Class II (8.7%), Class III (6.8%), Class IV (60.2%), Class V (20.4%), Class VI (2.9%) while the prevalence using the 2003 ISN/RPS Classification were: Class I (1%), Class II (8.7%), Class III (6.8%), Class IV (61.2%), Class V (21.3%), Class VI (1%). Both classifications were essentially comparable with regards to Classes I, II and III. The differences in Classes IV, V and VI were significant in potential to alter @entity1 management. The identification of segmental lesions (Class IV-S) over and above a global @entity1310 (Class IV-G) deserves more focused clinicopathological studies to gauge whether these groups have different clinical manifestations and outcomes. With regards Class V, the ISN/RPS system, by requiring that all mixed classes be stipulated in the diagnostic line, minimizes the chances of @entity1 missing out on additional treatment. The ISN/ RPS system has stricter criteria for Class VI, which again minimizes @entity1 missing out on therapy. On the whole, the ISN/RPS system is more user-friendly as criteria are more clearly defined which translates to more benefits to @entity1 care.
