{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Usefulness of CT Quantification-Based Assessment in Defining Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis.
{Author}: Ahn Y;Kim HC;Lee JK;Noh HN;Choe J;Seo JB;Lee SM;
{Journal}: Acad Radiol
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 13
{Factor}: 5.482
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.05.005
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To establish a quantitative CT threshold for radiological disease progression of progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) and evaluate its feasibility in patients with connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD).<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Between April 2007 and October 2022, patients diagnosed with CTD-ILD retrospectively evaluated. CT quantification was conducted using a commercial software by summing the percentages of ground-glass opacity, consolidation, reticular opacity, and honeycombing. The quantitative threshold for radiological progression was determined based on the highest discrimination on overall survival (OS). Two thoracic radiologists independently evaluated visual radiological progression, and the senior radiologist's assessment was used as the final result. Cox regression was used to assess prognosis of PPF based on the visual assessment and quantitative threshold.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>97 patients were included and followed up for a median of 30.3 months (range, 4.7-198.1 months). For defining radiological disease progression, the optimal quantitative CT threshold was 4%. Using this threshold, 12 patients were diagnosed with PPF, while 14 patients were diagnosed with PPF based on the visual assessment, with an agreement rate of 97.9% (95/97). Worsening respiratory symptoms (hazard ratio [HR], 12.73; P < .001), PPF based on the visual assessment (HR, 8.86; P = .002) and based on the quantitative threshold (HR, 6.72; P = .009) were independent risk factors for poor OS.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The quantitative CT threshold for radiological disease progression (4%) was feasible in defining PPF in terms of its agreement with PPF grouping and prognostic performance when compared to visual assessment.