The radiological differential diagnosis of the UIP pattern

Transcription

1 5th International Conference on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, Modena, 2015, June 12th The radiological differential diagnosis of the UIP pattern Simon Walsh King s College Hospital Foundation Trust London, United Kingdom

2 The radiological differential diagnosis of the UIP pattern Very short lecture..

3 Scope Suggest an algorithmic approach to HRCT diagnosis in the setting of fibrotic lung disease Within this, discuss The radiological differential diagnosis of the UIP pattern Challenges making a radiologic diagnosis of UIP/IPF

4 How do we make a radiologic diagnosis in the setting of fibrotic lung disease?

5 Making a HRCT diagnosis in fibrotic lung disease: key questions. Is it a fibrotic lung disease? If so, is it classical UIP? If its not UIP, what are the alternatives? alternatives

6 Making a HRCT diagnosis in fibrotic lung disease: key questions.

7 Revision: HRCT patterns of fibrosis (++++ = complete certainty) Honeycombing +++(+) Traction bronchiectasis ++(+) Volume loss +

8 Revision: HRCT patterns of fibrosis (++++ = complete certainty)

9

10 Revision: HRCT patterns of fibrosis (++++ = complete certainty)

11 Traction Bronchiectasis

12 Traction Bronchiectasis Non-tapering airway surrounded by abnormal lung parenchyma

13 Revision: HRCT patterns of fibrosis (++++ = complete certainty)

14 Volume loss can be difficult to appreciate.

15 Making a HRCT diagnosis in fibrotic lung disease: key questions.

16 3 diagnosis categories UIP pattern ( definite, classic ) Possible UIP pattern Inconsistent with a UIP pattern Raghu et al. AJRCCM 2011;183:788

17 Subpleural basal honeycombing UIP

18 Accuracy of a CT diagnosis of UIP/IPF

19 Accuracy of a CT diagnosis of UIP/IPF

20 What do these atypical cases look like?

21 Spectrum of atypical radiologic appearances of biopsy proven UIP Sverzellati et al. Radiology 2009;254:987 Most common radiologic diagnoses in 34 patients with biopsy proven UIP whose CT does not meet radiologic criteria for definite UIP (i.e. basal, subpleural honeycombing).. NSIP 18 CHP 4 Sarcoidosis 3 OP Other 1 8

22 Recap: Radiologic presentation of UIP/IPF 50% Definite UIP Radiologic presentation: Subpleural, basal honeycombing 50% Atypical UIP Radiologic presentation: Fibrotic NSIP (most common) CHP (rare) Fibrotic Sarcoidosis (very rare) 95+% accurate

23 Recap: Radiologic presentation of UIP/IPF 50% Definite UIP Radiologic presentation: Subpleural, basal honeycombing 50% Atypical UIP Radiologic presentation: Fibrotic NSIP (most common) CHP (rare) Fibrotic Sarcoidosis (very rare) 95+% accurate

24 Pitfalls.. IMPORTANT: confidence accuracy

25

26 MDT diagnosis = chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

27

28 MDT diagnosis = fibrotic NSIP

29

30

31 MDT diagnosis = fibrotic pulmonary sarcoidosis

32 Recap: Radiologic presentation of UIP/IPF 50% Definite UIP Radiologic presentation: Subpleural, basal honeycombing 50% Atypical UIP Radiologic presentation: Fibrotic NSIP (most common) CHP (rare) Fibrotic Sarcoidosis (very rare) 95+% accurate CAVEAT: In <5% of cases, a classic UIP pattern on CT may end up with a diagnosis of fibrotic NSIP, CHP or even sarcoidosis (rare) at MDT

33 HRCT diagnosis fibrotic lung disease

34 Diffuse fibrotic lung diseases - non-classic UIP options.. Atypical UIP (discussed previously) Fibrotic NSIP Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis Fibrotic Sarcoidosis Fibrotic variant of Organizing Pneumonia

35 Diffuse fibrotic lung diseases - non-classic UIP options..

36 IPF, fibrotic NSIP, CHP HRCT challenge. Characteristic CT features of chronic HP, IPF and fibrotic NSIP allow confident distinction between these entities in approximately 50% of patients. Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288

37 An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Statement: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Evidence-based Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management Definite UIP Atypical UIP or fibrotic NSIP Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis Raghu et al. AJRCCM 2011;183:788

38 Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

39 Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288

40 Upper lobe predominance Lobular areas of low attenuation (reflects small airways disease) Bronchocentricity Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288

41 BRONCHOCENTRICITY IPF CHP

42 Fibrotic NSIP

43 RELATIVE SUBPLEURAL SPARING Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288 MacDonald et al, Radiology 2001;221:600

44 GROUND GLASS PREDOMINANT WITH FINE RETICULATION Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288 MacDonald et al, Radiology 2001;221:600

45 NO HONEYCOMBING Silva et al, Radiology 2008;246:288 MacDonald et al, Radiology 2001;221:600

46 Fibrotic sarcoidosis

47 Perihilar bronchovascular distortion - reaching out to the subpleural lung

48 The fibrosis is often mass-like

49 Posterior retraction of the hila like this is almost pathognomonic

50 Fibrotic variant of organizing pneumonia Small group of patients presenting with organizing pneumonia Progressive fibrotic course and a poor prognosis In order to suggest this diagnosis with any degree of certainty, previous imaging, demonstrating OP is needed BJ Roberton et al, Eur Radiol 2011;21:2244

51 Non-fibrotic organizing pneumonia Classic perilobular pattern of OP

52 Non-fibrotic organizing pneumonia Bronchocentric band like opacities containing air bronchograms

53 Fibrotic variant of organizing pneumonia

54 Fibrotic variant of organizing pneumonia Traction bronchiectasis.

55 Fibrotic variant of organizing pneumonia Perilobular pattern.

56 Fibrotic variant of organizing pneumonia Band-like opacities with air bronchograms.

57

58 Re-cap..

59 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease?

60 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Honeycombing Traction Bronchiectasis Volume loss

61 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? yes Is it classical UIP?

62 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? yes Is it classical UIP? Basilar predominant Subpleural Honeycombing >95% accuracy for histopathologic UIP (but remember caveats)

63 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses

64 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses Lobular areas of decreased attenuation within normal lung CHP Absence of lower lobe predominance ± Centrilobular nodules (?) ± Upper lobe predominance ± Bronchocentricity

65 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses Atypical UIP vs. Fibrotic NSIP A common diagnostic dilemma in terms of imaging alone Rule out CHP (areas of lobular decreased attenuation) Clearly not fibrotic sarcoid Importance of AGE : Fell et al, AJRCCM 2010;181:832

66 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses Fibrotic sarcoidosis Classic sarcoid Ancillary features e.g. calcified nodes

67 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses Fibrotic variant of Organizing pneumonia Previous Imaging Features of OP

68 Is there evidence of a fibrotic lung disease? yes Is it classical UIP? No Alternative Diagnoses Atypical UIP vs. Fibrotic NSIP CHP Fibrotic sarcoidosis Fibrotic variant of Organizing pneumonia

69 Back to UIP/IPF Radiological challenge

70 Subpleural, basal honeycombing = classic UIP Easy

71 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines: Radiologic misdiagnosis is a problem Clinicians perspective: majority of clinicians found a HRCT diagnosis of IPF to be reliable in less than a third of practicing radiologists.. AU Wells - straw poll, Berlin IPF AIR meeting, November 2011

72 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines: Radiologic misdiagnosis is a problem Radiologists perspective: 150 cases of fibrotic lung disease Classify each case as Definite UIP Possible UIP Inconsistent with UIP Walsh, Calandriello, Sverzellati, Wells, Hansell and the fibrotic lung disease investigators

73 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines: Radiologic misdiagnosis is a problem Radiologists perspective: ESTI (European Society of Thoracic Imaging) BSTI (British Society of Thoracic Imaging) STR (Society of Thoracic Radiology) KSTR (Korean Society of Thoracic Radiology)

74 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines: Radiologic misdiagnosis is a problem Radiologists perspective: Observer agreement: 112 thoracic radiologists from 5 continents Kw = 0 47 ± 0.05 <0.4 = poor, = satisfactory, = good, >0.8 = excellent

75 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT guidelines: Radiologic misdiagnosis is a problem Radiologists perspective: Observer agreement: Thoracic radiologists > 25 years experience Kw = 0 37 ± 0.11 <0.4 = poor, = satisfactory, = good, >0.8 = excellent

76 Why?

77 Honeycombing.. 1. Cardinal CT sign of fibrosis 2. Important criterion for UIP 3. Important predictor of mortality in IPF However, it may not always be easy to confidently identify. Arakawa et al, AJR, 2011,196:773

78 Honeycombing? Paraseptal emphysema with coexistent honeycombing

79 Honeycombing? Traction bronchiectasis

80 43 Observers 27 Expert chest radiologists 80 single images Kw = <0.4 = poor, = satisfactory, = good,>0.8 = excellent Watadani et al, Radiology, 2013:266:936

81 Some inconsistency.. Weighted kappa s for honeycombing Lynch et al, AJRCCM, 2005:172:488 Kappa = Sundaram et al, AJR, 2008:191:1032 Kappa = Goldin et al, Chest, 2009:136:1333 Kappa = 0.39 <0.4 = poor, = satisfactory, = good, >0.8 = excellent

82 Some inconsistency.. Weighted kappa s for honeycombing Lynch et al, AJRCCM, 2005:172:488 Kappa = patients with biopsy proven IPF Expert thoracic radiologists <0.4 = poor, = satisfactory, = good, >0.8 = excellent

83 A counter argument.. Endless discussion about definition and identification of honeycombing missing the point?

84 Richeldi et al, 2011 Study population n=432 (28% with lung biopsy) Definite UIP = 32.9% i.e. honeycombing present in only 1/3 patients, in practice may be 20-45%

85 Radiologist s Challenge: to clarify possible UIP status Are there specific CT features that predict histopathologic UIP? Raghu et al. AJRCCM 2011;183:788

86 Gruden et al 2013 Raghu et al 2014 Chung et al 2015

87 201 cases of fibrotic lung disease With SLB data available Categorized cases as: Definite UIP (same as 2013 classification) Probable UIP Indeterminate Inconsistent with UIP (same as 2013 classification) Chung et al, Chest 2015;147:

88 201 cases of fibrotic lung disease With SLB data available Categorized cases as: Definite UIP (same as 2013 classification) Probable UIP Indeterminate ( possible UIP on 2013 classification) Inconsistent with UIP (same as 2013 classification) Chung et al, Chest 2015;147:

89 Probable UIP.. Peripheral and basilar predominant fibrosis with little or no honeycombing and absence of features to suggest another diagnosis Chung et al, Chest 2015;147:

90 Probable UIP (34/201) 82% had definite/probable UIP on histology Chung et al, Chest 2015;147:

91 DA Lynch - STR meeting Carlsbad 2015

92 IPF or Non-IPF IIP?

93 Clinical predictors of IPF The importance of age 135 patients (UIP / IPF=97; other IIPs=38) HRCT, PFTs, 6MWT (within 6/12 of biopsy)? Clinical-radiological predictors of IPF In idiopathic fibrotic lung disease, increasing age increases likelihood of a diagnosis of IPF irrespective of CT presentation >70 years PPV 95% >75 years PPV 100% Age is on the CT! Fell et al. AJRCCM, 2010;181:

94 New approach: Working diagnosis of IPF Takes CT appearance as starting point Typical for UIP Compatible with UIP Atypical for UIP Dynamic diagnostic process (not set in stone) Integrate other important non-radiological information, in particular AGE DISEASE BEHAVIOUR LAVAGE PROFILE

95 5th International Conference on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, Modena, 2015, June 12th The radiological differential diagnosis of the UIP pattern Simon Walsh King s College Hospital Foundation Trust London, United Kingdom