Occupational Asthma Reference

Burge GA, Okiror L, Trotter S, Langman G, Payyappilly S, Naidoo P, Reynolds J, Djearman M, Hussain S, Hoey E, Steyn R, Rajesh P, Bishay E, Naidu B, Kalkat M, Petkova D, Ghani S, Burge PS, Interstitial Lung Disease MDT presentations post VATS lung biopsy changes the original histological diagnosis in 30%, Thorax, 2015;70 Suppl 1:A27,10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207770.47

Keywords: Histology, ILD, MDT, UK

Known Authors

Sherwood Burge, Oasys Sherwood Burge

John Reynolds, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital John Reynolds

Gerald Langman, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital Gerald Langman

Geraldine Burge, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital Geraldine Burge

If you would like to become a known author and have your picture displayed along with your papers then please get in touch from the contact page. Known authors can choose to receive emails when their papers receive comments.

Abstract

Introduction
NICE recommends MDT presentation of all patients with suspected ILD. Any benefit of representation post VATS biopsy is unknown.

Methods
Our hospital (BHH) provides a regional service for thoracic surgery. All VATS lung biopsies for interstitial lung diseases carried out in 2013 were identified. They were presented post surgery at the ILD MDT where their history, physiology, immunology, original CTs and pathology were reviewed by a fully constituted MDT team including ILD specialist histopathologists, radiologists, clinicians and CNS’. The MDT diagnosis was compared with the original specialist pulmonary histopathology report.

Results
71 patients had qualifying VATS biopsies in 2013. In 21 patients (30%) the MDT diagnosis differed significantly from the original histology report. In a further 12 patients the MDT altered a probable to a definite diagnosis. In 3 patients the MDT reduced the confidence of the histological diagnosis. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis was diagnosed much more confidently by the MDT than the histologist alone. The interpretation of necrotising granuloma was a particular problem from the histology alone; the MDT confirming diagnoses of rheumatoid lung, sarcoidosis or no ILD. It was also possible to achieve specific diagnoses in 5 patients whose biopsies were reported as non-specific fibrosis; NSIP (2), UIP (2), HP (1), and in 2 in whom the original report was resolving pneumonia (both HP). In 10/21 patients there was sufficient evidence to classify the UIP as IPF (7), collagen vascular disease UIP (1), chronic HP UIP (1), and drug induced UIP (1). There was often insufficient exposure and immunological data for the MDT to further characterise UIP and NSIP.

Conclusions
The post biopsy MDT changed the diagnosis in 30% compared with the histology report alone. An ILD MDT review with the combination of radiology and pathology and an expert team provided significant extra benefit in terms of a precise diagnosis in patients biopsied with interstitial lung disease in whom the referring physician thought that a diagnosis was not possible without a biopsy. This is not surprising as the histologist is limited by sampling, the radiologist by resolution, and both by the lack of physiology, exposure history and immunology.

Plain text: Introduction NICE recommends MDT presentation of all patients with suspected ILD. Any benefit of representation post VATS biopsy is unknown. Methods Our hospital (BHH) provides a regional service for thoracic surgery. All VATS lung biopsies for interstitial lung diseases carried out in 2013 were identified. They were presented post surgery at the ILD MDT where their history, physiology, immunology, original CTs and pathology were reviewed by a fully constituted MDT team including ILD specialist histopathologists, radiologists, clinicians and CNS'. The MDT diagnosis was compared with the original specialist pulmonary histopathology report. Results 71 patients had qualifying VATS biopsies in 2013. In 21 patients (30%) the MDT diagnosis differed significantly from the original histology report. In a further 12 patients the MDT altered a probable to a definite diagnosis. In 3 patients the MDT reduced the confidence of the histological diagnosis. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis was diagnosed much more confidently by the MDT than the histologist alone. The interpretation of necrotising granuloma was a particular problem from the histology alone; the MDT confirming diagnoses of rheumatoid lung, sarcoidosis or no ILD. It was also possible to achieve specific diagnoses in 5 patients whose biopsies were reported as non-specific fibrosis; NSIP (2), UIP (2), HP (1), and in 2 in whom the original report was resolving pneumonia (both HP). In 10/21 patients there was sufficient evidence to classify the UIP as IPF (7), collagen vascular disease UIP (1), chronic HP UIP (1), and drug induced UIP (1). There was often insufficient exposure and immunological data for the MDT to further characterise UIP and NSIP. Conclusions The post biopsy MDT changed the diagnosis in 30% compared with the histology report alone. An ILD MDT review with the combination of radiology and pathology and an expert team provided significant extra benefit in terms of a precise diagnosis in patients biopsied with interstitial lung disease in whom the referring physician thought that a diagnosis was not possible without a biopsy. This is not surprising as the histologist is limited by sampling, the radiologist by resolution, and both by the lack of physiology, exposure history and immunology.

Full Text

Full text of this reference not available

Please Log In or Register to add the full text to this reference

Associated Questions

There are no associations for this paper.

Please Log In or Register to put forward this reference as evidence to a question.

Comments

Please sign in or register to add your thoughts.


Oasys and occupational asthma smoke logo