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.
Assessment of lung biopsies for the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is one of the most difficult diagnostic problems for surgical pathologists. It is a form of interstitial lung disease resulting from an immune reaction provoked by an inhaled antigen in susceptible individuals. Although this definition sounds simple, in practice, the diagnosis of HP can be challenging. To address these issues, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) has recently published a guideline for the diagnosis of HP. In this review, we will explore the multidisciplinary diagnostic evaluation of HP with a focus on the pathologic features as outlined in the CHEST guidelines. The histologic criteria are divided into 4 diagnostic categories: (1) Typical nonfibrotic HP or fibrotic HP; (2) Compatible with nonfibrotic HP or fibrotic HP; (3) Indeterminate for nonfibrotic or fibrotic HP; and (4) Alternative Diagnosis. It is important to emphasize that patterns 1 to 3 do not represent discrete histologic entities or pathologic diagnoses. Rather, these categories are meant to serve as a practical guide for organizing a complex set of overlapping histologic patterns into an integrated diagnostic framework for facilitating multidisciplinary discussion. High-resolution computed tomography features are also summarized, emphasizing how the correlation of lung biopsies with computed tomography findings can help to favor the diagnosis, particularly in cases where biopsies are not typical for HP. This review highlights details of the histologic spectrum of HP as well as the utility of different types of biopsies and bronchoalveolar lavage. We also emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary discussion and the complex differential diagnosis.
Utility of a Lung Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Abstract It is not known if a surgical lung biopsy is necessary in all patients for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We conducted a blinded, prospective study at eight referring centers. Initially, cases were evaluated by clinical history and examination, transbronchial biopsy, and high-resolution lung computed tomography scans. Pulmonologists at the referring centers then assessed their certainty of the diagnosis of IPF and provided an overall diagnosis, before surgical lung biopsy. The lung biopsies were reviewed by a pathology core and 54 of 91 patients received a pathologic diagnosis of IPF. The positive predictive value of a confident (certain) clinical diagnosis of IPF by the referring centers was 80%. The positive predictive value of a confident clinical diagnosis was higher, when the cases were reviewed by a core of pulmonologists (87%) or radiologists (96%). Lung biopsy was most important for diagnosis in those patients with an uncertain diagnosis and those thought unlikely to have IPF. These studies suggest that clinical and radiologic data that result in a confident diagnosis of IPF by an experienced pulmonologist or radiologist are sufficient to obviate the need for a lung biopsy. Lung biopsy is most helpful when clinical and radiologic data result in an uncertain diagnosis or when patients are thought not to have IPF.
Asthma and Associated Conditions: High-Resolution CT and Pathologic Findings
Abstract Rationale Patients with a clinicopathological diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) may have typical findings of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) on computed tomography (CT) or nonspecific or atypical findings, including those often seen in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia. Objectives The aims of this study were to revisit the high-resolution CT findings of IPF and to clarify the correlation between the CT findings and mortality. Methods The study included 98 patients with a histologic diagnosis of UIP and a clinical diagnosis of IPF. Two observers evaluated the CT findings independently and classified each case into one of the following three categories: (1) definite UIP, (2) consistent with UIP, or (3) suggestive of alternative diagnosis. The correlation between the CT categories and mortality was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test, as well as Cox proportional hazards regression models. Measurements and Main Results Thirty-three of the 98 CT scans were classified as definite UIP, 36 as consistent with UIP, 29 as suggestive of an alternative diagnosis. The mean survival was 45.7, 57.9, and 76.9 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival among the three categories (all P > 0.05). Traction bronchiectasis and fibrosis scores were significant predictors of outcome (hazard ratios: 1.30 and 1.10, respectively; 95% confidence intervals: 1.18–14.2 and 1.03–1.19, respectively). Conclusions In patients with IPF and UIP pattern on the biopsy, the pattern of abnormality on thin-section CT, whether characteristic of UIP or suggestive of alternative diagnosis, does not influence prognosis. Prognosis is influenced by traction bronchiectasis and fibrosis scores.
Clinical Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
Abstract The diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is difficult and often relies on histopathology. Our objective was to identify diagnostic criteria and to develop a clinical prediction rule for this disease. Consecutive patients presenting a condition for which HP was considered in the differential diagnosis underwent a program of simple standardized diagnostic procedures. High-resolution computed tomography scan and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) defined the presence or absence of HP. Patients underwent surgical lung biopsy when the computed tomography scan, BAL, and other diagnostic procedures failed to yield a diagnosis. A cohort of 400 patients (116 with HP, 284 control subjects) provided data for the rule derivation. Six significant predictors of HP were identified: (1) exposure to a known offending antigen, (2) positive precipitating antibodies to the offending antigen, (3) recurrent episodes of symptoms, (4) inspiratory crackles on physical examination, (5) symptoms occurring 4 to 8 hours after exposure, (6) and weight loss. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.90–0.95). The rule retained its accuracy when validated in a separate cohort of 261 patients. The diagnosis of HP can often be made or rejected with confidence, especially in areas of high or low prevalence, respectively, without BAL or biopsy.