Beasley, Mary Beth

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.

Context.— Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective.— To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Data Sources.— Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. Conclusions.— There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions.

Context.— The pathologic diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) remains a challenging area, and application of histologic UIP guidelines has proved difficult. Objective.— To understand current practice approaches by pulmonary pathologists for the histologic diagnosis of UIP and other fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Design.— The Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) ILD Working Group developed and sent a 5-part survey on fibrotic ILD electronically to the PPS membership. Results.— One hundred sixty-one completed surveys were analyzed. Of the respondents, 89% reported using published histologic features in clinical guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in their pathologic diagnosis; however, there was variability in reporting terminology, quantity and quality of histologic features, and the use of guideline categorization. Respondents were very likely to have access to pulmonary pathology colleagues (79%), pulmonologists (98%), and radiologists (94%) to discuss cases. Half of respondents reported they may alter their pathologic diagnosis based on additional clinical and radiologic history if it is pertinent. Airway-centered fibrosis, granulomas, and types of inflammatory infiltrates were considered important, but there was poor agreement on how these features are defined. Conclusions.— There is significant consensus among the PPS membership on the importance of histologic guidelines/features of UIP. There are unmet needs for (1) consensus and standardization of diagnostic terminology and incorporation of recommended histopathologic categories from the clinical IPF guidelines into pathology reports, (2) agreement on how to incorporate into the report relevant clinical and radiographic information, and (3) defining the quantity and quality of features needed to suggest alternative diagnoses.

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.

Context.— Accurate diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) requires multidisciplinary diagnosis that includes clinical, radiologic, and often pathologic assessment. In 2018, the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Society (ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT) and the Fleischner Society each published guidelines for the diagnosis of IPF, which include criteria for 4 categories of confidence of a histologic usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern. Objective.— To (1) identify the role of the guidelines in pathologic assessment of UIP; (2) analyze the 4 guideline categories, including potential areas of difficulty; and (3) determine steps the Pulmonary Pathology Society and the greater pulmonary pathology community can take to improve current guideline criteria and histopathologic diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Data Sources.— Data were derived from the guidelines, published literature, and clinical experience. Conclusions.— Both guidelines provide pathologists with a tool to relay to the clinician the likelihood that a biopsy represents UIP, and serve as an adjunct, not a replacement, for traditional histologic diagnosis. There are multiple challenges with implementing the guidelines, including (1) lack of clarity on the quantity and quality of histologic findings required, (2) lack of recognition that histologic features cannot be assessed independently, and (3) lack of guidance on how pathologists should incorporate clinical and radiographic information. Current criteria for “probable UIP” and “indeterminate for UIP” hinder accurate reflection of the likelihood of IPF. These challenges highlight the need for further morphologic-based investigations in the field of pulmonary pathology.

Context.— Vaping is the inhalation of heated aerosol from a small battery-powered device as a method to deliver nicotine or other substances. A recent outbreak of severe respiratory illness primarily in the United States has put a spotlight on vaping and its potential risks. Objective.— To familiarize pathologists with vaping, the cytologic and histopathologic features of vaping-associated acute lung injury, and the role of pathology in this diagnosis. Data Sources.— A targeted literature review was performed. Conclusions.— Most cases of vaping-associated lung injury have been linked to vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol or other cannabinoids. Lung biopsies show a spectrum of nonspecific acute lung injury patterns (organizing pneumonia, diffuse alveolar damage, acute fibrinous, and organizing pneumonia, or combinations of the above), accompanied by prominent, foamy macrophage accumulation. Injury is usually accentuated around small airways. Lipid-laden macrophages can be identified in bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid in most patients and these can be highlighted using lipid stains, such as oil red O, but the clinical utility of this finding remains unclear, as lipid-laden macrophages can be seen in a wide variety of processes and should not be relied upon to make the diagnosis. Classic histologic features of exogenous lipoid pneumonia have not been identified in tissue samples. Lightly pigmented macrophages, similar to those seen with traditional cigarette smoking, are present in some cases but are usually a minor feature. To date, no specific pathologic features for vaping-related injury have been identified, and it remains a diagnosis of exclusion that requires clinicopathologic correlation.

11085 Background: The College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) jointly initiated an effort to establish evidence-based recommendations for the molecular analysis of lung cancers required to guide EGFR- and ALK-directed therapies, addressing which patients and samples should be tested, and when and how testing should be performed. Methods: Three co-chairs without relevant conflicts of interest were selected, one from each of the sponsoring societies: CAP (P.T.C.), IASLC (M.L.), and AMP (N.I.L.). Writing and advisory panels were formed from additional experts from these societies. Unbiased literature searches were performed to capture articles up to February 2012, yielding 1,533 articles whose abstracts were screened to identify 521 pertinent articles that were then reviewed in detail for relevance. Evidence was formally graded for each of the recommendations first formulated by the co-chairs and panel members at a public meeting. Each guideline section was assigned to at least two panelists. Successive drafts were circulated for comments to the writing panel, the advisory panel, the public (online posting), and the three professional societies. Results: We generated 37 guideline items addressing 14 areas of EGFR and ALK testing. The major, evidence-based recommendations are to test for EGFR mutations and ALK fusions in all patients with advanced stage adenocarcinoma, regardless of sex, race, or smoking history, and to prioritize EGFR and ALK testing over other molecular predictive tests. Recommendations and expert consensus opinions were generated for all other key aspects of EGFR and ALK testing in lung cancer related to oncology and pathology practice and technical issues in molecular testing. Conclusions: As scientific discoveries and clinical practice outpace the completion of randomized clinical trials, evidence-based guidelines developed by expert practitioners are vital for communicating emerging clinical standards and thereby improving patient outcomes.

Context.— The diagnosis and grading of acute cellular and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) in lung allograft biopsies is important because rejection can lead to acute graft dysfunction and/or failure and may contribute to chronic graft failure. While acute cellular rejection is well defined histologically, no reproducible specific features of AMR are currently identified. Therefore, a combination of clinical features, serology, histopathology, and immunologic findings is suggested for the diagnosis of AMR. Objective.— To describe the perspective of members of the Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) on the workup of lung allograft transbronchial biopsy and the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection and AMR in lung transplant. Data Sources.— Reports by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), experience of members of PPS who routinely review lung allograft biopsies, and search of literature database (PubMed). Conclusions.— Acute cellular rejection should be assessed and graded according to the 2007 working formulation of the ISHLT. As currently no specific features are known for AMR in lung allografts, the triple test (clinical allograft dysfunction, donor-specific antibodies, pathologic findings) should be used for its diagnosis. C4d staining might be performed when morphologic, clinical, and/or serologic features suggestive of AMR are identified.