MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3206265812 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2021-0234-le

Fibroblast Foci and Patchy Fibrosis Do Not Separate Usual Interstitial Pneumonia From Fibrotic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis in Transbronchial Cryobiopsies

2021· letter· en· W3206265812 sur OpenAlexaff
Andrew Churg, Christopher J. Ryerson

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Établissements canadiensSt. Paul's HospitalVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésUsual interstitial pneumoniaHypersensitivity pneumonitisMedicinePathologyFibrosisIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisSarcoidosisMetaplasiaContext (archaeology)PulmonologistsPulmonary fibrosisBiopsyGiant cellExtrinsic Allergic AlveolitisLung biopsyLungBiologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor.—Although many pulmonologists are adopting transbronchial cryobiopsy, there is a remarkable dearth of information on the specific pathologic features used to diagnose various forms of interstitial lung disease in such specimens. Cooper et al1 have recently published pathologic criteria for usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP); they suggest that the combination of fibroblast foci and patchy fibrosis, along with the absence of features suggesting an alternative diagnosis, strongly support a diagnosis of UIP in a cryobiopsy.We2 reported in Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine an in-silico exercise in which we created “cryobiopsies” by outlining multiple circles on the pathology slides of 15 video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) biopsies from cases that had been given a 60% or greater probability of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fibrotic HP) during a specialty devised multidisciplinary discussion exercise.3 We found a low probability of detecting granulomas or giant cells, features acknowledged to be markers in this context of fibrotic HP and not UIP. However, the probability of finding peribronchiolar metaplasia affecting 50% or greater of bronchioles, a feature that also supports a diagnosis of fibrotic HP,3 was considerably higher, and the frequency of these features within an individual case generally increased with increasing numbers of “cryobiopsies.”Here, we went back to our previously used VATS biopsy slides and asked whether the features described by Cooper et al1 as favoring a diagnosis of UIP could be found in our fibrotic HP-derived “cryobiopsies.” We used the same “cryobiopsies” previously selected for analysis of granulomas/giant cells and peribronchiolar metaplasia, and counted the number of samples showing fibroblast foci, and patchy fibrosis in 1 to 8 “cryobiopsies” for each case; these features had not been evaluated in our previous study.2 For comparison, the total biopsy area of 86.4 mm2 for 4 of our “cryobiopsies” is identical to the mean total area of 87 mm2 reported in the COLDICE study.4Results are shown in the Table. Fibroblast foci were frequently found, from 8 of 15 (53%) cases if a single “cryobiopsy” was evaluated for each case, to 12 of 15 (80%) if 4 biopsies were evaluated, and 12 of 13 (92%) with 8 biopsies (2 cases did not have enough VATS biopsy area to create 8 “cryobiopsies”). Patchy fibrosis ranged from 4 of 15 (27%) single biopsies, to 8 of 15 (53%) with 4 biopsies, and 12 of 13 (92%) with 8 biopsies. The combination of fibroblast foci and patchy fibrosis was found in 1 of 15 (6.7%) cases with a single biopsy and increased to 7 of 15 (47%) cases when 4 biopsies were reviewed and 10 of 13 (77%) with 8 biopsies, suggesting the potential to misclassify almost half of fibrotic HP biopsies as UIP with 4 biopsies and the majority of patients with 8 biopsies using these criteria alone. This situation is improved by also looking for giant cells/granulomas or peribronchiolar metaplasia affecting more than 50% of bronchioles, but still leaves a significant number of fibrotic HP cases misclassified as UIP (Table).This is obviously a small series that uses a somewhat artificial system. Nonetheless, these data emphasize the idea that a combination of fibroblast foci and patchy fibrosis is a feature not only of UIP but also of fibrotic HP, and used by themselves, these features will lead to misclassification of a proportion of fibrotic HP cases as UIP.Although it may be surprising to nonspecialist pathologists (and to many clinicians), the exact pathologic features that define UIP, even in VATS biopsies, are not universally agreed upon, as discussed in detail in 2 recent position papers,5,6 and this is a problem that needs to be addressed. That being so, it is even harder to determine the features that should be used to separate conditions, such as fibrotic HP, which often have considerable morphologic overlap with UIP.Granulomas/giant cells are generally accepted as features against a diagnosis of UIP; extensive peribronchiolar metaplasia, in our view, favors fibrotic HP,3 and fibrosis that is predominantly peribronchiolar rather than subpleural also is in favor of fibrotic HP. But how to quantify and apply these criteria to actual cryobiopsies, and where one draws the line between UIP and fibrotic HP in such biopsies, is an important unanswered question, a problem also acknowledged by Cooper et al.1

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,022

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,029
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,250
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineMême sujetInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisTravaux en français237 207