Bankier, Alexander A.

Abstract Background Despite advances in diagnosis and management, the interstitial lung disease (ILD) lexicon is plagued by ambiguous and inconsistent terminology that complicates communication and impedes knowledge generation. The objective of this Fleischner Society Consensus Statement was to produce standardized terminology for ILD multidisciplinary diagnoses and major phenotypes. Methods Interviews with 10 experts were used to identify ILD clinical diagnoses and major phenotypes. The preferred terms for each entity and potential alternatives were identified, alongside the rationale for the preferred term. Entities with more than one potential term were the subject of an online modified Delphi survey posed to the 29 committee members, aiming to achieve consensus. Committee members rated their agreement with the initially preferred term—5 (strongly agree), 4 (agree), 3 (neutral/unsure), 2 (disagree), and 1 (strongly disagree)—with the option to provide additional comments. Median score ≥4 and interquartile range ≤1 were considered consensus agreement. Terms not reaching agreement were discussed by video conference, followed by an additional survey that incorporated feedback. Results From the 60 initial terms, there were two root terms that required upfront consensus before survey initiation (ILD and interstitial pneumonia) and another eight terms that had no alternative suggested by the committee or in the literature. Agreement was met by 47/50 terms (94%) in Round 1 of the survey. The three terms (6%) that did not reach agreement met agreement in Round 2. Conclusions This document provides standardized recommended terms for ILD multidisciplinary diagnoses and major phenotypes that will facilitate communication among clinicians, researchers, patients, and other stakeholders.

Abstract Emphysema’s significant morbidity and mortality underscore the need for reliable outcome metrics in clinical trials. However, commonly accepted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcome measures do not adequately capture emphysema severity or progression. Computed tomography (CT) metrics have been validated as accurate indicators of pathological emphysema and predictors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease progression, exacerbations, and mortality. This position paper reviews the evidence supporting CT densitometry as a biomarker for emphysema, establishes implementation standards, and highlights areas for future research. A systematic literature review addressed three key questions: whether CT densitometry can be used as a diagnostic biomarker of emphysema, whether CT densitometry can be used as a prognostic biomarker, and whether longitudinal change in densitometry can be used as a disease progression monitoring biomarker. Emphysema metrics, such as the percentage of low attenuation areas below −950 Hounsfield units, are validated, highly reproducible diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Volume-adjusted lung density is recommended for disease monitoring. Both metrics demonstrate a scan–rescan intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 with proper technique. The paper also discusses relevant CT physics, techniques, and sources of variation, including technical factors, physiological changes, and software analysis. Key recommendations for clinical trials include using standardized CT techniques, proper subject selection, and longitudinal evaluation with volume-adjusted lung density.