B C Frye1, J C Schupp1,2, M E Rothe3, T C Köhler1, A Prasse1,4, G Zissel1, W Vach5, J Müller-Quernheim1. 1. Department of Pneumology, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 2. Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Medical Hospital, Research Center Borstel, Sülfeld, Germany. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 5. Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Center for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is standard diagnostic procedure. Procedural recommendations have been made by pneumological societies including normal values for interpretation of BAL cytology. These normal values derive from small studies in healthy volunteers and have never been analysed for their sensitivity and specificity. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyse sensitivity and specificity of these normal values by assessing lavage cell composition in healthy and diseased individuals. METHODS: More than 6000 BAL were retrospectively analysed for their cellular distribution including BALs of 250 healthy individuals. All BALs were obtained under similar conditions. RESULTS: Bronchoalveolar lavage cytology of healthy individuals mirrors data from previous studies with smoking being the most important manipulator of BAL cytology. Analyses of proposed normal values demonstrate specificity between 80% and 95%, whereas sensitivity ranges between 35% and 65%. Using different mathematical models, a value summing up the differences to ATS-proposed normal values of the cytological pattern was found to best discriminate between healthy and diseased individuals with a sensitivity of nearly 60% with a predefined specificity of 95%. CONCLUSION: In summary, our analysis confirmed prior results for healthy volunteers and enlarged these findings by analysing sensitivity and specificity of lavage results in an independent validation cohort of diseased individuals. Thereby, the study may influence the acceptance of BAL in the diagnostic workup of individuals with pulmonary diseases. Additionally, the study proposes a novel value that facilitates lavage interpretation and may therefore be useful in further studies.
BACKGROUND: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is standard diagnostic procedure. Procedural recommendations have been made by pneumological societies including normal values for interpretation of BAL cytology. These normal values derive from small studies in healthy volunteers and have never been analysed for their sensitivity and specificity. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyse sensitivity and specificity of these normal values by assessing lavage cell composition in healthy and diseased individuals. METHODS: More than 6000 BAL were retrospectively analysed for their cellular distribution including BALs of 250 healthy individuals. All BALs were obtained under similar conditions. RESULTS: Bronchoalveolar lavage cytology of healthy individuals mirrors data from previous studies with smoking being the most important manipulator of BAL cytology. Analyses of proposed normal values demonstrate specificity between 80% and 95%, whereas sensitivity ranges between 35% and 65%. Using different mathematical models, a value summing up the differences to ATS-proposed normal values of the cytological pattern was found to best discriminate between healthy and diseased individuals with a sensitivity of nearly 60% with a predefined specificity of 95%. CONCLUSION: In summary, our analysis confirmed prior results for healthy volunteers and enlarged these findings by analysing sensitivity and specificity of lavage results in an independent validation cohort of diseased individuals. Thereby, the study may influence the acceptance of BAL in the diagnostic workup of individuals with pulmonary diseases. Additionally, the study proposes a novel value that facilitates lavage interpretation and may therefore be useful in further studies.
Authors: David Friedmann; Susanne Unger; Baerbel Keller; Mirzokhid Rakhmanov; Sigune Goldacker; Gernot Zissel; Björn C Frye; Jonas C Schupp; Antje Prasse; Klaus Warnatz Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 7.561