Mohammad Alsumrain1, Federica De Giacomi2, Faria Nasim3, Chi Wan Koo4, Brian J Bartholmai5, David L Levin6, Teng Moua7. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: alsumrain@yahoo.com. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; San Gerardo Hospital, ASST di Monza, University of Milan-Bicocca, Dipartimento Cardio-Toraco-Vascolare, Respiratory Unit Via Pergolesi, Monza, IT, Italy. Electronic address: i.fede@live.it. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: nasim.faria@mayo.edu. 4. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: koo.chiwan@mayo.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: bartholmai.brian@mayo.edu. 6. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: levin.david@mayo.edu. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. Electronic address: moua.teng@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of classifiable and unclassifiable causes of lung fibrosis and its implications for survival are mostly unknown in combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with >10% involvement of both emphysema and lung fibrosis seen over 11 years at our institution were reviewed independently by expert radiologists for fibrotic and emphysematous findings and overall fibrotic CT pattern. Underlying interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnoses and baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collated and assessed for predictors of comparative survival. RESULTS: In this retrospective cohort, 179 CPFE patients were identified and categorized as 58 usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (UIP/IPF) (32%), 42 secondary ILD (23%), and 79 unclassifiable ILD (44%). The most prevalent (47%) radiologic pattern was 'unclassifiable', followed by 'consistent' and 'possible' UIP pattern in 38%. Adjusted predictors of mortality for the cohort as a whole included age (HR 1.03[1.01-1.06], P = 0.002), percent predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (unit HR 0.97 [0.96-0.99], P = 0.001), honeycombing (HR 1.58 [1.02-2.43], P = 0.04), and right ventricular dysfunction (HR 2.28 [1.39-3.97], P = 0.002). Survival was similar between CPFE with secondary ILD and CPFE with UIP/IPF, while CPFE with unclassifiable ILD had better comparative survival (Log rank = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest only about a third of CPFE patients represent suspected UIP/IPF; the majority were clinically and radiologically unclassifiable ILD whose survival was comparatively better. Identifiable or secondary causes of lung fibrosis in CPFE occurred in about a fifth of presenting patients.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of classifiable and unclassifiable causes of lung fibrosis and its implications for survival are mostly unknown in combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients with >10% involvement of both emphysema and lung fibrosis seen over 11 years at our institution were reviewed independently by expert radiologists for fibrotic and emphysematous findings and overall fibrotic CT pattern. Underlying interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnoses and baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were collated and assessed for predictors of comparative survival. RESULTS: In this retrospective cohort, 179 CPFEpatients were identified and categorized as 58 usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (UIP/IPF) (32%), 42 secondary ILD (23%), and 79 unclassifiable ILD (44%). The most prevalent (47%) radiologic pattern was 'unclassifiable', followed by 'consistent' and 'possible' UIP pattern in 38%. Adjusted predictors of mortality for the cohort as a whole included age (HR 1.03[1.01-1.06], P = 0.002), percent predicted diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (unit HR 0.97 [0.96-0.99], P = 0.001), honeycombing (HR 1.58 [1.02-2.43], P = 0.04), and right ventricular dysfunction (HR 2.28 [1.39-3.97], P = 0.002). Survival was similar between CPFE with secondary ILD and CPFE with UIP/IPF, while CPFE with unclassifiable ILD had better comparative survival (Log rank = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest only about a third of CPFEpatients represent suspected UIP/IPF; the majority were clinically and radiologically unclassifiable ILD whose survival was comparatively better. Identifiable or secondary causes of lung fibrosis in CPFE occurred in about a fifth of presenting patients.
Authors: Hannah Fleming; Simon M Clifford; Aoife Haughey; Roisin MacDermott; Niall McVeigh; Gerard M Healy; Lisa Lavelle; Suhny Abbara; David J Murphy; Aurelie Fabre; Edward McKone; Cormac McCarthy; Marcus Butler; Peter Doran; David A Lynch; Michael P Keane; Jonathan D Dodd Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2020-11-03