Alexandra N Bickett1, Elyse E Lower1, Robert P Baughman2. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH. Electronic address: bob.baughman@uc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is made by the combination of clinical features and biopsy results. The clinical features of sarcoidosis can be quite variable. We developed a Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score (SDS) to summarize the clinical features of patients with possible sarcoidosis. METHODS: Biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis seen during a 7-month period at the University of Cincinnati sarcoidosis clinic were prospectively identified. Patients with nonsarcoidosis seen at the same clinic were used as control patients. Using a modified World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders organ assessment instrument, we scored all patients for presence of biopsy, ≥1 highly probable symptom, and ≥1 at least probable symptom for each area. Two sarcoidosis scores were generated: SDS biopsy (with biopsy) and SDS clinical (without biopsy). RESULTS: The 980 evaluable patients were divided into two cohorts: an initial 600 patients (450 with biopsy-confirmed sarcoidosis, 150 control patients) to establish cutoff values for SDS biopsy and an SDS clinical and a validation cohort of 380 patients (103 biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis and 277 control patients). The best cutoff value for SDS biopsy was ≥ 6 (sensitivity, 99.3%; specificity, 100%). For the total the 980 patients, an SDS clinical ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity of 88.5%, and a likelihood ratio of 7.9. An SDS clinical score ≥ 4 had a lower sensitivity of (76.9%) but higher specificity (98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: For sarcoidosis, the presence of specific clinical features, especially multiorgan involvement, can enhance the diagnostic certainty. The SDS scoring system quantitated the clinical features consistent with sarcoidosis.
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is made by the combination of clinical features and biopsy results. The clinical features of sarcoidosis can be quite variable. We developed a Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Score (SDS) to summarize the clinical features of patients with possible sarcoidosis. METHODS: Biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis seen during a 7-month period at the University of Cincinnati sarcoidosis clinic were prospectively identified. Patients with nonsarcoidosis seen at the same clinic were used as control patients. Using a modified World Association of Sarcoidosis and Other Granulomatous Disorders organ assessment instrument, we scored all patients for presence of biopsy, ≥1 highly probable symptom, and ≥1 at least probable symptom for each area. Two sarcoidosis scores were generated: SDS biopsy (with biopsy) and SDS clinical (without biopsy). RESULTS: The 980 evaluable patients were divided into two cohorts: an initial 600 patients (450 with biopsy-confirmed sarcoidosis, 150 control patients) to establish cutoff values for SDS biopsy and an SDS clinical and a validation cohort of 380 patients (103 biopsy-confirmed patients with sarcoidosis and 277 control patients). The best cutoff value for SDS biopsy was ≥ 6 (sensitivity, 99.3%; specificity, 100%). For the total the 980 patients, an SDS clinical ≥ 3 had a sensitivity of 90.6%, specificity of 88.5%, and a likelihood ratio of 7.9. An SDS clinical score ≥ 4 had a lower sensitivity of (76.9%) but higher specificity (98.6%). CONCLUSIONS: For sarcoidosis, the presence of specific clinical features, especially multiorgan involvement, can enhance the diagnostic certainty. The SDS scoring system quantitated the clinical features consistent with sarcoidosis.
Authors: Dieter De Smet; Geert A Martens; Bram Vanden Berghe; Marc Meysman; Olivier Heylen; Frans K Gorus; Marc De Waele Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Robert P Baughman; Marjolein Drent; Mani Kavuru; Marc A Judson; Ulrich Costabel; Roland du Bois; Carlo Albera; Martin Brutsche; Gerald Davis; James F Donohue; Joachim Müller-Quernheim; Rozsa Schlenker-Herceg; Susan Flavin; Kim Hung Lo; Barry Oemar; Elliot S Barnathan Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Robert P Baughman; Shelli Field; Ulrich Costabel; Ronald G Crystal; Daniel A Culver; Marjolein Drent; Marc A Judson; Gerhard Wolff Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2016-08
Authors: Marc A Judson; Robert P Baughman; Ulrich Costabel; Marjolein Drent; Kevin F Gibson; Ganesh Raghu; Hidenobu Shigemitsu; Joseph B Barney; Daniel A Culver; Nabeel Y Hamzeh; Marlies S Wijsenbeek; Carlo Albera; Isham Huizar; Prasheen Agarwal; Carrie Brodmerkel; Rosemary Watt; Elliot S Barnathan Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: J P Zajicek; N J Scolding; O Foster; M Rovaris; J Evanson; I F Moseley; J W Scadding; E J Thompson; V Chamoun; D H Miller; W I McDonald; D Mitchell Journal: QJM Date: 1999-02
Authors: Paolo Cameli; Carla Caffarelli; Rosa Metella Refini; Laura Bergantini; Miriana d'Alessandro; Martina Armati; Maria Dea Tomai Pitinca; Piersante Sestini; Stefano Gonnelli; Elena Bargagli Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-10-29