Diffuse Pulmonary Ossification in Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Diseases: Prevalence and Associations.

Purpose To investigate the prevalence of diffuse pulmonary ossification (DPO) in patients with fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) and determine whether there are differences among the types of ILDs. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was given and patient consent was not required for this study. The study population comprised 892 consecutive patients with fibrosing ILD, including 456 patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (men, 366; women, 90; median age, 72 years [range, 38-93 years]), 244 with nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (men, 79; women, 165; median age, 60.5 years [range, 23-86 years]), and 192 with chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (men, 76; women, 116; median age, 66 years [range, 35-88 years]). Pulmonary ossifications were recorded when nodules (<4 mm diameter) were identified on bone window images (width, 2500 HU; level, 500 HU). DPO was defined as 10 or more bilateral nodular ossifications (definition 1) or as one or more lobes with five or more bilateral nodular ossifications (definition 2). Relationships among pulmonary ossification and parenchymal patterns, clinical parameters, and multidisciplinary team diagnoses were examined. The prevalence of DPO was compared with the χ2 statistic or Fisher exact test, and multivariate analysis was performed with logistic regression. Results In the whole population, the prevalence of DPO was 166 (18.6%) and 106 (11.9%) of 892 patients according to definitions 1 and 2, respectively. The prevalence of DPO (definition 1) was significantly higher in patients with IPF (28.5%) than in those without IPF (8.3%, P < .001). Nine of 192 (4.7%) had chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (P < .001), and 27 of 244 (11.1%) had nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (P < .001). At multivariate analysis, DPO according to definition 1 was an independent predictor of IPF diagnosis (P < .001) and male sex (P = .003). Coarseness of fibrosing ILD (P = .011) and IPF diagnosis (P = .016) were independently associated with pulmonary ossification profusion. Conclusion DPO is common in patients with fibrosing ILD and is significantly more prevalent in patients with IPF than in those with other fibrosing ILDs, and thus, computed tomographic signs of DPO may be helpful for diagnosis of IPF. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Rare idiopathic interstitial pneumonias: LIP and PPFE and rare histologic patterns of interstitial pneumonias: AFOP and BPIP.

In the 2013 reclassification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs), two rare IIPs (idiopathic lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (LIP), idiopathic pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (IPPFE)) and two rare histologic patterns (acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia (AFOP), bronchiolocentric pattern of interstitial pneumonia (BPIP)) are described. All these entities are rare with small series published to date, mostly containing primary and secondary forms of disease. LIP is histologically characterized by diffuse polyclonal lymphoid cell infiltrate surrounding the airways and expanding the interstitium. Thin-walled cysts and diffuse ground glass are considered the typical radiologic features. The clinical course is highly variable with corticosteroid responsiveness evident in approximately half of cases. IPPFE is defined histologically by coexisting upper lobe pleural and intra-alveolar fibrosis with elastosis. Dense subpleural irregular fibrosis and consolidation are the cardinal radiologic features. A history of recurrent lower respiratory tract infection is frequent. Responses to immunomodulation have not been reported and the rate of progression appears to be highly variable. AFOP is a rare histologic pattern lying within the spectrum of acute/subacute lung injury, characterized by organizing pneumonia and intra-alveolar fibrin deposition without hyaline membranes. BPIP is characterized histologically by fibrosis and/or inflammation confined to the alveolar interstitium around bronchovascular bundles, overlapping with peribronchial metaplasia and fibrosis in some series. Currently, AFOP and BPIP are both best viewed as histological entities rather than true clinical disorders, in the absence of characteristic associated imaging patterns and clinical features.

Mixed Ventilatory Defects in Pulmonary Sarcoidosis: Prevalence and Clinical Features.

BACKGROUND: In cohort studies of pulmonary sarcoidosis, abnormal ventilatory patterns have generally been subdivided into restrictive and obstructive defects. Mixed ventilatory defects have largely been overlooked in pulmonary sarcoidosis, as total lung capacity has seldom been taken into account in historical series. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study evaluated the prevalence of mixed disease in pulmonary sarcoidosis and its clinical associations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis (N = 1,110), mixed defects were defined according to American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society criteria. Clinical data, pulmonary function variables, and vital status were abstracted from clinical records. Chest radiographs were evaluated independently by two experienced radiologists. RESULTS: The prevalence of a mixed ventilatory defect was 10.4% in the whole cohort, rising to 25.9% in patients with airflow obstruction. Compared with isolated airflow obstruction, mixed defects were associated with lower diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide levels (50.7 ± 16.3 vs 70.8 ± 18.1; P < .0001), a higher prevalence of chest radiographic stage IV disease (63.5% vs 38.3%; P < .0001), and higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.34-4.15; P = .003). These findings were reproduced in all patient subgroup analyses, including patients with a histologic diagnosis, a clinical diagnosis, incident disease, and prevalent disease. INTERPRETATION: Mixed disease is present in approximately 25% of patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and airflow obstruction and is associated with lower diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide levels, a higher prevalence of stage IV disease, and higher mortality than seen in a pure obstructive defect. These observations identify a distinct phenotype associated with a mixed ventilatory defect, justifying future studies of its clinical and pathogenetic significance.

Diagnosing complications and co-morbidities of fibrotic interstitial lung disease.

Introduction: Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) represent a heterogeneous group of rare disorders that include more than 200 entities, mostly associated with high mortality. In recent years, the progress regarding the understanding of the pathogenesis of these diseases led to the approval of specific treatments. In ILDs, the presence of comorbidities has a significant impact on the quality of life and the survival of patients and, therefore, their diagnosis and treatment has a pivotal role in management and could improve overall outcome. Areas covered: We discuss key diagnostic issues with regard to the most frequent comorbidities in ILDs. Treatment options are also discussed as the decision to investigate more definitively in order to identify specific comorbidities (including lung cancer, pulmonary hypertension, GE reflux, and obstructive sleep apnoea) is critically dependent upon whether comorbidity-specific treatments are likely to be helpful in individual patients, judged on a case by case basis. Expert opinion: The extent to which clinicians proactively pursue the identification of comorbidities depends on realistic treatment goals in individual patients.

Personalised medicine in interstitial lung diseases: Number 6 in the Series "Personalised medicine in respiratory diseases" Edited by Renaud Louis and Nicolas Roche.

Interstitial lung diseases in general, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in particular, are complex disorders with multiple pathogenetic pathways, various disease behaviour profiles and different responses to treatment, all facets that make personalised medicine a highly attractive concept. Personalised medicine is aimed at describing distinct disease subsets taking into account individual lifestyle, environmental exposures, genetic profiles and molecular pathways. The cornerstone of personalised medicine is the identification of biomarkers that can be used to inform diagnosis, prognosis and treatment stratification. At present, no data exist validating a personalised approach in individual diseases. However, the importance of the goal amply justifies the characterisation of genotype and pathway signatures with a view to refining prognostic evaluation and trial design, with the ultimate aim of selecting treatments according to profiles in individual patients.

Multicentre evaluation of multidisciplinary team meeting agreement on diagnosis in diffuse parenchymal lung disease: a case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse parenchymal lung disease represents a diverse and challenging group of pulmonary disorders. A consistent diagnostic approach to diffuse parenchymal lung disease is crucial if clinical trial data are to be applied to individual patients. We aimed to evaluate inter-multidisciplinary team agreement for the diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. METHODS: We did a multicentre evaluation of clinical data of patients who presented to the interstitial lung disease unit of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK; host institution) and required multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) characterisation between March 1, 2010, and Aug 31, 2010. Only patients whose baseline clinical, radiological, and, if biopsy was taken, pathological data were undertaken at the host institution were included. Seven MDTMs, consisting of at least one clinician, radiologist, and pathologist, from seven countries (Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK) evaluated cases of diffuse parenchymal lung disease in a two-stage process between Jan 1, and Oct 15, 2015. First, the clinician, radiologist, and pathologist (if lung biopsy was completed) independently evaluated each case, selected up to five differential diagnoses from a choice of diffuse lung diseases, and chose likelihoods (censored at 5% and summing to 100% in each case) for each of their differential diagnoses, without inter-disciplinary consultation. Second, these specialists convened at an MDTM and reviewed all data, selected up to five differential diagnoses, and chose diagnosis likelihoods. We compared inter-observer and inter-MDTM agreements on patient first-choice diagnoses using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ). We then estimated inter-observer and inter-MDTM agreement on the probability of diagnosis using weighted kappa coefficient (κw). We compared inter-observer and inter-MDTM confidence of patient first-choice diagnosis. Finally, we evaluated the prognostic significance of a first-choice diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) versus not IPF for MDTMs, clinicians, and radiologists, using univariate Cox regression analysis. FINDINGS: 70 patients were included in the final study cohort. Clinicians, radiologists, pathologists, and the MDTMs assigned their patient diagnoses between Jan 1, and Oct 15, 2015. IPF made up 88 (18%) of all 490 MDTM first-choice diagnoses. Inter-MDTM agreement for first-choice diagnoses overall was moderate (κ=0·50). Inter-MDTM agreement on diagnostic likelihoods was good for IPF (κw=0·71 [IQR 0·64-0·77]) and connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease (κw=0·73 [0·68-0·78]); moderate for non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP; κw=0·42 [0·37-0·49]); and fair for hypersensitivity pneumonitis (κw=0·29 [0·24-0·40]). High-confidence diagnoses (>65% likelihood) of IPF were given in 68 (77%) of 88 cases by MDTMs, 62 (65%) of 96 cases by clinicians, and in 57 (66%) of 86 cases by radiologists. Greater prognostic separation was shown for an MDTM diagnosis of IPF than compared with individual clinician's diagnosis of this disease in five of seven MDTMs, and radiologist's diagnosis of IPF in four of seven MDTMs. INTERPRETATION: Agreement between MDTMs for diagnosis in diffuse lung disease is acceptable and good for a diagnosis of IPF, as validated by the non-significant greater prognostic separation of an IPF diagnosis made by MDTMs than the separation of a diagnosis made by individual clinicians or radiologists. Furthermore, MDTMs made the diagnosis of IPF with higher confidence and more frequently than did clinicians or radiologists. This difference is of particular importance, because accurate and consistent diagnoses of IPF are needed if clinical outcomes are to be optimised. Inter-multidisciplinary team agreement for a diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis is low, highlighting an urgent need for standardised diagnostic guidelines for this disease. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research, Imperial College London.