4.7 Article

Computed tomography findings in pathological usual interstitial pneumonia -: Relationship to survival

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200611-1696OC

关键词

interstitial pneumonia; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; high-resolution computed tomography; lung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Patients with a clinicopathological diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) may have typical findings of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) on computed tomography (CT) or nonspecific or atypical findings, including those often seen in nonspecific interstitial pneumonia. Objectives: The aims of this study were to revisit the high-resolution CT findings of IPF and to clarify the correlation between the CT findings and mortality. Methods: The study included 98 patients with a histologic diagnosis of UIP and a clinical diagnosis of IPF. Two observers evaluated the CT findings independently and classified each case into one of the following three categories: (7) definite UIP, (2) consistent with UIP, or (3) suggestive of alternative diagnosis. The correlation between the CT categories and mortality was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test, as well as Cox proportional hazards regression models. Measurements and Main Results: Thirty-three of the 98 CT scans were classified as definite UIP, 36 as consistent with UIP, 29 as suggestive of an alternative diagnosis. The mean survival was 45.7, 57.9, and 76.9 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in survival among the three categories (all P > 0.05). Traction bronchiectasis and fibrosis scores were significant predictors of outcome (hazard ratios: 1.30 and 1.10, respectively; 95% confidence intervals: 1.18-14.2 and 1.03-1.19, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with IPF and UIP pattern on the biopsy, the pattern of abnormality on thin-section CT, whether characteristic of UIP or suggestive of alternative diagnosis, does not influence prognosis. Prognosis is influenced by traction bronchiectasis and fibrosis scores.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据