Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fibrotic lung disease with an overall poor prognosis. A simple-to-use staging system for IPF may improve prognostication, help guide management, and facilitate research. To develop a multidimensional prognostic staging system for IPF by using commonly measured clinical and physiologic variables. A clinical prediction model was developed and validated by using retrospective data from 3 large, geographically distinct cohorts. Interstitial lung disease referral centers in California, Minnesota, and Italy. 228 patients with IPF at the University of California, San Francisco (derivation cohort), and 330 patients at the Mayo Clinic and Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital (validation cohort). The primary outcome was mortality, treating transplantation as a competing risk. Model discrimination was assessed by the c-index, and calibration was assessed by comparing predicted and observed cumulative mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years. Four variables were included in the final model: gender (G), age (A), and 2 lung physiology variables (P) (FVC and Dlco). A model using continuous predictors (GAP calculator) and a simple point-scoring system (GAP index) performed similarly in derivation (c-index of 70.8 and 69.3, respectively) and validation (c-index of 69.1 and 68.7, respectively). Three stages (stages I, II, and III) were identified based on the GAP index with 1-year mortality of 6%, 16%, and 39%, respectively. The GAP models performed similarly in pooled follow-up visits (c-index ≥71.9). Patients were drawn from academic centers and analyzed retrospectively. The GAP models use commonly measured clinical and physiologic variables to predict mortality in patients with IPF. University of California, San Francisco Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

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. 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. 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. 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. National Institute of Health Research, Imperial College London.

Background: A diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) may include surgical lung biopsy (SLB), which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and also appreciable costs. Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) is adopting an important role. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) and safety of TBLC and SLB in a large cohort of patients and to perform a systematic review of the literature as well as a meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 447 cases with ILD undergoing TBLC and/or SLB and a systematic review of the literature (MEDLINE and Embase for all original articles on the DY and safety of TBLC in ILDs up to July 2015). Results: A total of 150 patients underwent SLB and 297 underwent TBLC. The median time of hospitalization was 6.1 days (SLB) and 2.6 days (TBLC; p < 0.0001). Mortality due to adverse events was observed for 2.7% (SLB) and 0.3% (TBLC) of the patients. Pneumothorax was the most common complication after TBLC (20.2%). No severe bleeding was observed. TBLC was diagnostic for 246 patients (82.8%), SLB for 148 patients (98.7%, p = 0.013). A meta-analysis of 15 investigations including 781 patients revealed an overall DY of 0.81 (0.75-0.87); the overall pooled probability of developing a pneumothorax, as retrieved from 15 studies including 994 patients, was 0.06 (95% CI 0.02-0.11). Conclusion: Cryobiopsy is safe and has lower complication and mortality rates compared to SLB. TBLC might, therefore, be considered the first diagnostic approach for obtaining tissue in ILDs, reserving the surgical approach for cases in which TBLC is not diagnostic.

Transbronchial cryobiopsies (TBCB) have recently been introduced as a promising and safer alternative to surgical lung biopsy in the diagnostic approach to diffuse parenchymal lung diseases (DPLD). Despite a substantial and expanding body of literature, the technique has not yet been standardized and its place in the diagnostic algorithm of DPLD remains to be defined. In part, this reflects concerns over the diagnostic yield and safety of the procedure, together with the rapid spread of the technique without competency and safety standards; furthermore, there is a substantial procedural variability among centers and interventional pulmonologists. We report this expert statement proposed during the third international conference on “Transbronchial Cryobiopsy in Diffuse Parenchymal Lung Disease” (Ravenna, October 27–28, 2016), which formulates evidence- and expert-based suggestions on the indications, contraindications, patient selection, and procedural aspects of the procedure. The following 5 domains were reviewed: (1) what is the role of TBCB in the diagnostic evaluation of DPLD: patient selection; (2) pathological considerations; (3) contraindications and safety considerations; (4) how should TBCB be performed and in what procedural environment; and (5) who should perform TBCB. Finally, the existence of white paper recommendations may also reassure local hospital credentialing committees tasked with endorsing an adoption of the technique.

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.