4.7 Article

Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Changes in pattern and distribution of disease over time

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 247, 期 1, 页码 251-259

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070369

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To retrospectively assess the change in disease pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia ( NSIP) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ( IPF) findings seen at thin-section computed tomography ( CT) at long-term follow-up and to compare the same with initial findings at CT. Materials and Methods: The study included 48 patients ( 28 men, 20 women; mean age, 57.5 years) with biopsy-proved NSIP ( n = 23) or IPF ( n = 25) who underwent CT at initial diagnosis and at follow-up 34 - 155 months later. The CT scans were randomized and reviewed by two independent thoracic radiologists for pattern and distribution of ground-glass opacity ( GGO), reticulation, traction bronchiectasis and bronchiolectasis, and honeycombing. Statistical analysis was performed by using nonparametric methods and univariate logistic regression. Results: Follow-up CT in patients with NSIP showed marked decrease in the extent of GGO, increase in reticulation, and a greater likelihood of peripheral distribution ( all P <.05). At presentation, the CT findings were interpreted as suggestive of NSIP in 18 of 23 patients with NSIP and indeterminate or suggestive of IPF in five. In five ( 28%) of 18 patients with initial findings suggestive of NSIP, the follow-up CT scans were interpreted as more suggestive of IPF. No CT features seen at presentation allowed distinction between patients with NSIP that maintained an NSIP pattern at follow-up and those that progressed to an IPF pattern. Conclusion: At follow-up CT, 28% of patients with initial CT findings suggestive of NSIP progressed to findings suggestive of IPF. Similar initial CT findings for NSIP may have different imaging outcomes. (C) RSNA, 2008.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据