4.6 Article

Clinical spectrum and prognostic factors of possible UIP pattern on high-resolution CT in patients who underwent surgical lung biopsy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193608

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Few studies have reported the diagnostic variability in patients with a possible usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern on high-resolution CT (HRCT) who underwent surgical lung biopsy (SLB), and the prognostic factors for these patients have not been fully evaluated. We retrospectively investigated the frequency of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and prognostic factors in patients with possible UIP pattern on HRCT. Methods Consecutive patients who had a possible UIP pattern on HRCT, underwent SLB, and had a diagnosis of IIPs before SLB were retrospectively recruited from 10 hospitals. Diagnoses were made based on multidisciplinary discussion using the criteria for current IPF guidelines and multidisciplinary classification for IIPs in each hospital. Results 179 patients who underwent SLB were enrolled. The diagnoses were IPF in 91 patients (51%), unclassifiable IIPs in 47 (26%), idiopathic NSIP in 18 (10%), and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonia in 17 (9%). One-year FVC changes showed significant differences between IPF and non-IPF (-138.6 mL versus 18.2 mL, p = 0.014). Patients with IPF had a worse mortality than those with non-IPF (Logrank test, p = 0.025). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that diagnoses of IPF (HR, 2.961; 95% CI, 1.183-7.410; p = 0.02), high modified MRC score (HR, 1.587; 95% CI, 1.003-2.510; p = 0.049), and low %FVC (HR, 0.972; 95% CI, 0.953-0.992; p = 0.005). Conclusions About a half of patients with a possible UIP pattern on HRCT had diagnoses other than IPF, and patients with IPF had a worse mortality than those with an alternative diagnosis. We reaffirmed that multidisciplinary discussion is crucial in patients with possible UIP pattern on HRCT.

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

4.6
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