Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.
Sec. Nephrology
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1470309

Progression to kidney failure in ADPKD: The PROPKD score underestimates the risk assessed by the Mayo Imaging Classification

Provisionally accepted
Daniela M. Allmer Daniela M. Allmer 1*Diego Parada Rodriguez Diego Parada Rodriguez 1Christof Aigner Christof Aigner 1Franco Laccone Franco Laccone 2Mato Nagel Mato Nagel 3Sylvia Metz-Schimmerl Sylvia Metz-Schimmerl 4Gere Sunder-Plassmann Gere Sunder-Plassmann 1
  • 1 Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 2 Institute of Medical Genetics, Center for Pathobiochemistry and Genetics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 3 Center for Nephrology and Metabolic Medicine, Weisswasser, Germany
  • 4 Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy Division of General and Paediatric Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Autosomal-dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common inherited kidney disease and fourth leading cause for renal replacement therapy worldwide. Disease progression is tightly linked to genotype, however, factors like genetic modifiers and environmental factors are responsible for a high phenotypic variability within-as well as between families. Individual's risk of progression to kidney failure is assessed using prediction-or risk-assessment tools such as the predicting renal outcomes in ADPKD score (PROPKD score) and the Mayo Imaging Classification (MIC). The PROPKD score encompasses genetic and phenotypic parameters, while the MIC relies on renal imaging, height, and age of patients. Both methods categorize patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk for progression to kidney failure. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, we calculated the risk of progression to kidney failure in our population and analyzed the agreement between the methods in three separate models with alternating stratification of MIC risk categories. We found a mismatch for risk assessment between the respective risk categories, indicating that the PROPKD score and MIC should not be used interchangeably. Preferably, the MIC should be used as a base for risk assessment and may be enhanced by genotypic and phenotypic information.

    Keywords: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, PKD1, PKD2, disease progression, imaging classification of ADPKD, Mayo imaging classification, PROPKD score, Risk Assessment

    Received: 25 Jul 2024; Accepted: 02 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Allmer, Parada Rodriguez, Aigner, Laccone, Nagel, Metz-Schimmerl and Sunder-Plassmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Daniela M. Allmer, Division of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.