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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |