Churg, Andrew

Transbronchial cryobiopsies (CB) are increasingly replacing surgical biopsies (video-assisted thoracoscopic/VATS biopsies) for diagnosing diffuse parenchymal lung disease (interstitial lung disease, ILD), but there is very little guidance for pathologists on CB interpretation. Here we propose a fairly simple approach. First, if the diagnosis can be made on a traditional forceps biopsy, it can be made on a cryobiopsy. Many diseases with specific features will fall into this category (eg, sarcoidosis or Langerhans cell histiocytosis). More problematic are patterns such as usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), in which low-power architecture is the key to diagnosis. In this circumstance, an adequate sample is crucial to look for features such as fibroblast foci, because a combination of fibroblast foci plus any patchy old fibrosis, fibrotic architectural remodeling, or honeycombing, allows a diagnosis of a UIP pattern. However, in most instances, CB will not separate the UIP patterns seen in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or connective tissue disease-interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD), although giant cells/granulomas (uncommon findings) in this setting favor fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Fibroblast foci can be difficult to differentiate from organizing pneumonia (OP), but granulation tissue plugs clearly in airspaces favor OP. Absent fibroblast foci, patchy old fibrosis, architectural distortion, and honeycombing by themselves do not allow a specific diagnosis. NSIP in CB microscopically looks like NSIP in VATS biopsies, and the presence of an NSIP or an NSIP+OP pattern is typical of CTD-ILD. All the above diagnoses require correlation with clinical and radiologic findings.

AimTransbronchial cryobiopsies are increasingly used for the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but there is a lack of published information on the features of specific ILD in cryobiopsies. Here we attempt to provide pathological guidelines for separating usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (FHP) and connective tissue disease‐associated ILD (CTD–ILD) in cryobiopsies.MethodsWe examined 120 cryobiopsies from patients with multidisciplinary discussion (MDD)‐established CTD–ILD and compared them to a prior series of 121 biopsies from patients with MDD‐established IPF or FHP.ResultsA non‐specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) pattern alone was seen in 36 of 120 (30%) CTD–ILD, three of 83 (3.6%) FHP and two of 38 (5.2%) IPF cases, statistically favouring a diagnosis of CTD–ILD. The combination of NSIP + OP was present in 29 of 120 (24%) CTD–ILD, two of 83 (2.4%) FHP and none of 38 (0%) IPF cases, favouring a diagnosis of CTD–ILD. A UIP pattern, defined as fibroblast foci plus any of patchy old fibrosis/fibrosis with architectural distortion/honeycombing, was identified in 28 of 120 (23%) CTD–ILD, 45 of 83 (54%) FHP and 27 of 38 (71%) IPF cases and supported a diagnosis of FHP or IPF. The number of lymphoid aggregates/mm2 and fibroblast foci/mm2 was not different in IPF, CTD–ILD or FHP cases with a UIP pattern. Interstitial giant cells supported a diagnosis of FHP or CTD–ILD over IPF, but were infrequent.ConclusionsIn the correct clinical/radiological context the pathological findings of NSIP, and particularly NSIP plus OP, favour a diagnosis of CTD–ILD in a cryobiopsy, but CTD–ILD with a UIP pattern, FHP with a UIP pattern and IPF generally cannot be distinguished.

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.

The use of lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (LIP) as a diagnostic term has changed considerably since its introduction. Utilizing a multi-institutional collection of 201 cases from the last 20 years that demonstrate features associated with the LIP rubric, we compared cases meeting strict histologic criteria of LIP per American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) consensus (“pathologic LIP”; n=62) with cystic cases fulfilling radiologic ATS/ERS criteria (“radiologic LIP”; n=33) and with other diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. “Pathologic LIP” was associated with immune dysregulation including autoimmune disorders and immune deficiency, whereas “radiologic LIP” was only seen with autoimmune disorders. No case of idiopathic LIP was found. On histology, “pathologic LIP” represented a subgroup of 70% (62/88) of cases with the distinctive pattern of diffuse expansile lymphoid infiltrates. In contrast, “radiologic LIP” demonstrated a broad spectrum of inflammatory patterns, airway-centered inflammation being most common (52%; 17/33). Only 5 cases with radiologic cysts also met consensus ATS/ERS criteria for “pathologic LIP.” Overall, broad overlap was observed with the remaining study cases that failed to meet consensus criteria for “radiologic LIP” and/or “pathologic LIP.” These data raise concerns about the practical use of the term LIP as currently defined. What radiologists and pathologist encounter as LIP differs remarkably, but neither “radiologic LIP” nor “pathologic LIP” present with sufficiently distinct findings to delineate such cases from other patterns of diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. As a result of this study, we believe LIP should be abandoned as a pathologic and radiologic diagnosis.

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.

Abstract Context. —Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. Objective. —To develop practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of MM. Data Sources. —A pathology panel was convened at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group biennial meeting (October 2006). Pathologists with an interest in the field also contributed after the meeting. Conclusions. —There was consensus opinion regarding (1) distinguishing benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations (both epithelioid and spindle cell lesions), (2) cytologic diagnosis of MM, (3) key histologic features of pleural and peritoneal MM, (4) use of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MM, (5) differentiating epithelioid MM from various carcinomas (lung, breast, ovarian, and colonic adenocarcinomas and squamous cell and renal cell carcinomas), (6) diagnosis of sarcomatoid mesothelioma, (7) use of molecular markers in the differential diagnosis of MM, (8) electron microscopy in the diagnosis of MM, and (9) some caveats and pitfalls in the diagnosis of MM. Immunohistochemical panels are integral to the diagnosis of MM, but the exact makeup of panels used is dependent on the differential diagnosis and on the antibodies available in a given laboratory. Immunohistochemical panels should contain both positive and negative markers. The International Mesothelioma Interest Group recommends that markers have either sensitivity or specificity greater than 80% for the lesions in question. Interpretation of positivity generally should take into account the localization of the stain (eg, nuclear versus cytoplasmic) and the percentage of cells staining (>10% is suggested for cytoplasmic membranous markers). These guidelines are meant to be a practical reference for the pathologist.

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.

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) and selective immunoglobulin A deficiency (IgAD) often cause chronic lung disease, but the pulmonary pathologic features of these systemic diseases are poorly recognized by pathologists. It has been claimed that CVID cases show a characteristic combination of noncaseating granulomas-lymphoid proliferations termed granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease (GLILD). We present 34 surgical lung biopsy cases of CVID and 4 of IgAD. Noncaseating granulomas were seen in 23/34 (68%) CVID and 2/4 (50%) IgAD cases. A statistically identical pattern of benign lymphoid proliferation was found in CVID and IgAD whether or not granulomas were present. Organizing pneumonia, sometimes considered a part of GLILD, was seen in 25/34 (74%) CVID and 2/4 (50%) IgAD cases and did not correlate with the presence of granulomas. On follow-up, 3 CVID patients died (only 1 of pulmonary disease), while 21 others are alive at 1 to 300 months with no difference by presence or absence of granulomas. Three IgAD patients with follow-up are alive. We conclude that CVID and IgAD are indistinguishable in surgical lung biopsies and a subset of both show patterns that would qualify as GLILD, while other cases lack granulomas but have identical patterns of lymphoid infiltration and organizing pneumonia. We suggest that GLILD is neither a specific nor a useful entity, and biopsies from CVID and IgAD patients should be diagnosed simply by microscopic pattern(s) observed. The prognosis of CVID with lymphoid infiltrates with or without granulomas in this series was good, contrary to claims in the literature about GLILD.