Hariri, Lida P.

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.— 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.