Sverzellati, Nicola

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 Rationale Surgical lung biopsy is often required for a confident multidisciplinary diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Alternative, less-invasive biopsy methods, such as bronchoscopic lung cryobiopsy (BLC), are highly desirable. Objectives To address the impact of BLC on diagnostic confidence in the multidisciplinary diagnosis of IPF. Methods In this cross-sectional study we selected 117 patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease without a typical usual interstitial pneumonia pattern on high-resolution computed tomography. All cases underwent lung biopsies: 58 were BLC, and 59 were surgical lung biopsy (SLB). Two clinicians, two radiologists, and two pathologists sequentially reviewed clinical-radiologic findings and biopsy results, recording at each step in the process their diagnostic impressions and confidence levels. Measurements and Main Results We observed a major increase in diagnostic confidence after the addition of BLC, similar to SLB (from 29 to 63%, P = 0.0003 and from 30 to 65%, P = 0.0016 of high confidence IPF diagnosis, in the BLC group and SLB group, respectively). The overall interobserver agreement in IPF diagnosis was similar for both approaches (BLC overall kappa, 0.96; SLB overall kappa, 0.93). IPF was the most frequent diagnosis (50 and 39% in the BLC and SLB group, respectively; P = 0.23). After the addition of histopathologic information, 17% of cases in the BLC group and 19% of cases in the SLB group, mostly idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia and hypersensitivity pneumonitis, were reclassified as IPF. Conclusions BLC is a new biopsy method that has a meaningful impact on diagnostic confidence in the multidisciplinary diagnosis of interstitial lung disease and may prove useful in the diagnosis of IPF. This study provides a robust rationale for future studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy of BLC compared with SLB.