HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines

Background and aims: Chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the central diagnostic tool in discerning idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) from other interstitial lung disease (ILDs). In 2018, new guidelines were published and the nomenclature for HRCT interpretation was changed. We soug...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Steven D. Nathan, Jean Pastre, Inga Ksovreli, Scott Barnett, Christopher King, Shambhu Aryal, Kareem Ahmad, Cesar Fukuda, Vijaya Ramalingam, Jonathan H. Chung
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-10-01
Series:Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/1753466620968496
id doaj-208d7f609f5c4817a785ce78b324c787
record_format Article
spelling doaj-208d7f609f5c4817a785ce78b324c7872020-11-25T03:45:11ZengSAGE PublishingTherapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease1753-46662020-10-011410.1177/1753466620968496HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelinesSteven D. NathanJean PastreInga KsovreliScott BarnettChristopher KingShambhu AryalKareem AhmadCesar FukudaVijaya RamalingamJonathan H. ChungBackground and aims: Chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the central diagnostic tool in discerning idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) from other interstitial lung disease (ILDs). In 2018, new guidelines were published and the nomenclature for HRCT interpretation was changed. We sought to evaluate how clinicians’ interpretation would change based on reading HRCTs under the framework of the old versus new categorization. Materials and methods: We collated HRCTs from 50 random cases evaluated in the Inova Fairfax ILD clinic. Six ILD experts were provided the deidentified HRCTs. They were all instructed to independently provide two reads of each HRCT, based on the old and the new guidelines. Results: The kappa statistic for concordance for HRCT reads under old guidelines was 0.5, while for the new guidelines it was 0.38. Under the framework of the old guidelines, there were 22 HRCTs with unanimous consensus reads, while only 15 with the new guidelines. There were 12 HRCTs read unanimously as usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern based on both the old and the new guidelines. Ten HRCTs were read as a possible UIP pattern based on the old guidelines and were classified in nine cases as probable UIP and one indeterminate based on the new guidelines. Of the 28 inconsistent UIP HRCTs (old guidelines), 25 were read as alternative diagnosis suggested, two were read as indeterminate and one as probable UIP. Conclusion: Implementation of the new guidelines to categorize HRCTs in ILD patients appears to be associated with greater inter-interpreter variability. How or whether new guidelines improve the care and management of ILD patients remains unclear. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.https://doi.org/10.1177/1753466620968496
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Steven D. Nathan
Jean Pastre
Inga Ksovreli
Scott Barnett
Christopher King
Shambhu Aryal
Kareem Ahmad
Cesar Fukuda
Vijaya Ramalingam
Jonathan H. Chung
spellingShingle Steven D. Nathan
Jean Pastre
Inga Ksovreli
Scott Barnett
Christopher King
Shambhu Aryal
Kareem Ahmad
Cesar Fukuda
Vijaya Ramalingam
Jonathan H. Chung
HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
author_facet Steven D. Nathan
Jean Pastre
Inga Ksovreli
Scott Barnett
Christopher King
Shambhu Aryal
Kareem Ahmad
Cesar Fukuda
Vijaya Ramalingam
Jonathan H. Chung
author_sort Steven D. Nathan
title HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
title_short HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
title_full HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
title_fullStr HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
title_full_unstemmed HRCT evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
title_sort hrct evaluation of patients with interstitial lung disease: comparison of the 2018 and 2011 diagnostic guidelines
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease
issn 1753-4666
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Background and aims: Chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the central diagnostic tool in discerning idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) from other interstitial lung disease (ILDs). In 2018, new guidelines were published and the nomenclature for HRCT interpretation was changed. We sought to evaluate how clinicians’ interpretation would change based on reading HRCTs under the framework of the old versus new categorization. Materials and methods: We collated HRCTs from 50 random cases evaluated in the Inova Fairfax ILD clinic. Six ILD experts were provided the deidentified HRCTs. They were all instructed to independently provide two reads of each HRCT, based on the old and the new guidelines. Results: The kappa statistic for concordance for HRCT reads under old guidelines was 0.5, while for the new guidelines it was 0.38. Under the framework of the old guidelines, there were 22 HRCTs with unanimous consensus reads, while only 15 with the new guidelines. There were 12 HRCTs read unanimously as usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern based on both the old and the new guidelines. Ten HRCTs were read as a possible UIP pattern based on the old guidelines and were classified in nine cases as probable UIP and one indeterminate based on the new guidelines. Of the 28 inconsistent UIP HRCTs (old guidelines), 25 were read as alternative diagnosis suggested, two were read as indeterminate and one as probable UIP. Conclusion: Implementation of the new guidelines to categorize HRCTs in ILD patients appears to be associated with greater inter-interpreter variability. How or whether new guidelines improve the care and management of ILD patients remains unclear. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/1753466620968496
work_keys_str_mv AT stevendnathan hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT jeanpastre hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT ingaksovreli hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT scottbarnett hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT christopherking hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT shambhuaryal hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT kareemahmad hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT cesarfukuda hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT vijayaramalingam hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
AT jonathanhchung hrctevaluationofpatientswithinterstitiallungdiseasecomparisonofthe2018and2011diagnosticguidelines
_version_ 1724510640428548096