Reliability of histopathologic diagnosis of fibrotic interstitial lung disease: an international collaborative standardization project.
Interstitial lung disease
Pulmonary fibrosis
Usual interstitial pneumonia
Journal
BMC pulmonary medicine
ISSN: 1471-2466
Titre abrégé: BMC Pulm Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968563
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2021
01 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
22
12
2020
accepted:
28
04
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
5
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Current interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnostic guidelines assess criteria across clinical, radiologic and pathologic domains. Significant interobserver variation in histopathologic evaluation has previously been shown but the specific source of these discrepancies is poorly documented. We sought to document specific areas of difficulty and develop improved criteria that would reduce overall interobserver variation. Using an internet-based approach, we reviewed selected images of specific diagnostic features of ILD histopathology and whole slide images of fibrotic ILD. After an initial round of review, we confirmed the presence of interobserver variation among our group. We then developed refined criteria and reviewed a second set of cases. The initial round reproduced the existing literature on interobserver variation in diagnosis of ILD. Cases which were pre-selected as inconsistent with usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (UIP/IPF) were confirmed as such by multi-observer review. Cases which were thought to be in the spectrum of chronic fibrotic ILD for which UIP/IPF were in the differential showed marked variation in nearly all aspects of ILD evaluation including extent of inflammation and extent and pattern of fibrosis. A proposed set of more explicit criteria had only modest effects on this outcome. While we were only modestly successful in reducing interobserver variation, we did identify specific reasons that current histopathologic criteria of fibrotic ILD are not well defined in practice. Any additional classification scheme must address interobserver variation in histopathologic diagnosis of fibrotic ILD order to remain clinically relevant. Improvements to tissue-based diagnostics may require substantial resources such as larger datasets or novel technologies to improve reproducibility. Benchmarks should be established for expected outcomes among clinically defined subgroups as a quality metric.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Current interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnostic guidelines assess criteria across clinical, radiologic and pathologic domains. Significant interobserver variation in histopathologic evaluation has previously been shown but the specific source of these discrepancies is poorly documented. We sought to document specific areas of difficulty and develop improved criteria that would reduce overall interobserver variation.
METHODS
METHODS
Using an internet-based approach, we reviewed selected images of specific diagnostic features of ILD histopathology and whole slide images of fibrotic ILD. After an initial round of review, we confirmed the presence of interobserver variation among our group. We then developed refined criteria and reviewed a second set of cases.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The initial round reproduced the existing literature on interobserver variation in diagnosis of ILD. Cases which were pre-selected as inconsistent with usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (UIP/IPF) were confirmed as such by multi-observer review. Cases which were thought to be in the spectrum of chronic fibrotic ILD for which UIP/IPF were in the differential showed marked variation in nearly all aspects of ILD evaluation including extent of inflammation and extent and pattern of fibrosis. A proposed set of more explicit criteria had only modest effects on this outcome. While we were only modestly successful in reducing interobserver variation, we did identify specific reasons that current histopathologic criteria of fibrotic ILD are not well defined in practice.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Any additional classification scheme must address interobserver variation in histopathologic diagnosis of fibrotic ILD order to remain clinically relevant. Improvements to tissue-based diagnostics may require substantial resources such as larger datasets or novel technologies to improve reproducibility. Benchmarks should be established for expected outcomes among clinically defined subgroups as a quality metric.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34074264
doi: 10.1186/s12890-021-01522-6
pii: 10.1186/s12890-021-01522-6
pmc: PMC8170950
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
184Références
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Aug;7(7):889-896
pubmed: 31428413
JCI Insight. 2019 Nov 14;4(22):
pubmed: 31600171
Am J Surg Pathol. 2002 Dec;26(12):1567-77
pubmed: 12459623
Ann Intern Med. 1976 Dec;85(6):769-88
pubmed: 793466
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1811-1823
pubmed: 29742380
Lancet Respir Med. 2016 Jul;4(7):557-565
pubmed: 27180021
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar 15;183(6):788-824
pubmed: 21471066
Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Feb;6(2):138-153
pubmed: 29154106
Am J Clin Pathol. 2009 Mar;131(3):405-15
pubmed: 19228646
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 May;149(5):1394-401.e1
pubmed: 25648484
Histopathology. 2012 Dec;61(6):1026-35
pubmed: 22882269
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020 Dec 1;144(12):1477-1489
pubmed: 32614648
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Aug 1;202(3):e36-e69
pubmed: 32706311
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2083-92
pubmed: 24836312
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018 Jan;142(1):109-119
pubmed: 28537805
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Jan 15;203(2):211-220
pubmed: 32721166
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2071-82
pubmed: 24836310
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2020 Aug;47:151561
pubmed: 32623312
Thorax. 2004 Jun;59(6):500-5
pubmed: 15170033
Chest. 2015 Oct;148(4):1034-1042
pubmed: 26111071
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):453-460
pubmed: 32145830
Eur Respir J. 2018 May 17;51(5):
pubmed: 29773608
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017 Jul;141(7):901-915
pubmed: 27628326
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 May;42(5):672-678
pubmed: 29438171
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep 1;198(5):e44-e68
pubmed: 30168753
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016 May 15;193(10):1161-7
pubmed: 26646481
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Dec;140(12):1375-1382
pubmed: 27610646
Eur Respir J. 2016 Apr;47(4):1189-97
pubmed: 26917616
Pathol Res Pract. 2015 Jan;211(1):55-61
pubmed: 25433993