Abstract. The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving Ͻ50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving Ն50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.The morphologic changes in a renal biopsy from a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) comprise a spectrum of vascular, glomerular, and tubulointerstitial lesions. The classification of SLE nephritis has evolved over the past 40 years as more lesions were identified and defined. It has been an increasing challenge to apply new pathogenetic insights to the interpretation of the renal biopsy in SLE and to correlate pathologic findings with clinical symptoms, choice of treatment, and prognosis. The current classification, which was advanced in 1982 (1) and revised in 1995 (2), reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of renal injury in SLE nephritis. However, subsequent clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for clarification of the different categories and the diagnostic terminology. The clas-

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving > or =50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.

No abstract