Extract
The diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) can be straightforward for some experienced experts without biopsy data, but not so straightforward to others. In the context of suspected idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), accurate non-invasive diagnosis requires recognition of the hallmark usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern on imaging, obviating lung biopsy [1, 2]. When the imaging pattern is “probable UIP”, the need for histopathology confirmation of a UIP pattern in surgical lung biopsy (SLB) is often debated, despite concordance between expert groups that SLB is not mandated for IPF diagnosis when the clinical setting is appropriate and multidisciplinary discussion has taken place [1–3].
Abstract
The debate about the benefit of performing a surgical lung biopsy in patients with the probable UIP pattern needs every case to be viewed on an individual basis. This editorial attempts to bring some clarity to treating physicians and confused patients. http://bit.ly/2Qk517r
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: M. Kolb reports grants from Canadian Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, Canadian Institute for Health Research, Alkermes and Actelion, grants and personal fees for advisory board work from Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Canada and Prometic, personal fees for advisory board work from Gilead, editorial allowance from European Respiratory Journal, and has been site PI in clinical trials for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: G. Raghu has provided consultancy for Avalyn, BI, Bellerophan, BMS, Biogen, Blade Therapeutics, Fibrogen, Promedior, Nitto, Respivant, Roche-Genentech, Veracyte and Zambon, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: A. Wells reports personal fees for consultancy and lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, personal fees for consultancy from Blade, outside the submitted work.
- Received March 7, 2020.
- Accepted March 10, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020