Nicholson, Andrew

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.

AimsThymic tumours are rare in routine pathology practice. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) classification describes a number of well‐defined categories, the classification remains challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of the WHO classification among a large group of international pathologists with expertise in thymic pathology and by using whole slide imaging to facilitate rapid diagnostic turnover.Methods and resultsThree hundred and five tumours, consisting of 90 biopsies and 215 resection specimens, were reviewed with a panel‐based virtual microscopy approach by a group of 13 pathologists with expertise in thymic tumours over a period of 6 years. The specimens were classified according to the WHO 2015 classification. The data were subjected to statistical analysis, and interobserver concordance (Fleiss kappa) was calculated. All cases were diagnosed within a time frame of 2 weeks. The overall level of agreement was substantial (κ = 0.6762), and differed slightly between resection specimens (κ = 0.7281) and biopsies (κ = 0.5955). When analysis was limited to thymomas only, and they were grouped according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines into B2, B3 versus A, AB, B1 and B3 versus A, AB, B1, B2, the level of agreement decreased slightly (κ = 0.5506 and κ = 0.4929, respectively). Difficulties arose in distinguishing thymoma from thymic carcinoma. Within the thymoma subgroup, difficulties in distinction were seen within the B group.ConclusionsAgreement in diagnosing thymic lesions is substantial when they are assessed by pathologists with experience of these rare tumours. Digital pathology decreases the turnaround time and facilitates access to what is essentially a multinational resource. This platform provides a template for dealing with rare tumours for which expertise is sparse.