Patients with acute exacerbation of lung fibrosis with usual interstitial pneumonia (EUIP) pattern are at increased risk for ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and mortality when exposed to mechanical ventilation (MV). Yet, lack of a mechanical model describing UIP-lung deformation during MV represents a research gap. Aim of this study was to develop a constitutive mathematical model for UIP-lung deformation during lung protective MV based on the stress-strain behavior and the specific elastance of patients with EUIP as compared to that of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and healthy lung. Partitioned lung and chest wall mechanics were assessed for patients with EUIP and primary ARDS (1:1 matched based on body mass index and PaO2/FiO2 ratio) during a PEEP trial performed within 24 h from intubation. Patient\'s stress-strain curve and the lung specific elastance were computed and compared with those of healthy lungs, derived from literature. Respiratory mechanics were used to fit a novel mathematical model of the lung describing mechanical-inflation-induced lung parenchyma deformation, differentiating the contributions of elastin and collagen, the main components of lung extracellular matrix. Five patients with EUIP and 5 matched with primary ARDS were included and analyzed. Global strain was not different at low PEEP between the groups. Overall specific elastance was significantly higher in EUIP as compared to ARDS (28.9 [22.8-33.2] cmH2O versus 11.4 [10.3-14.6] cmH2O, respectively). Compared to ARDS and healthy lung, the stress/strain curve of EUIP showed a steeper increase, crossing the VILI threshold stress risk for strain values greater than 0.55. The contribution of elastin was prevalent at lower strains, while the contribution of collagen was prevalent at large strains. The stress/strain curve for collagen showed an upward shift passing from ARDS and healthy lungs to EUIP lungs. During MV, patients with EUIP showed different respiratory mechanics, stress-strain curve and specific elastance as compared to ARDS patients and healthy subjects and may experience VILI even when protective MV is applied. According to our mathematical model of lung deformation during mechanical inflation, the elastic response of UIP-lung is peculiar and different from ARDS. Our data suggest that patients with EUIP experience VILI with ventilatory setting that are lung-protective for patients with ARDS.

Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonias (IIPs) are a heterogeneous group of the broader category of Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILDs), pathologically characterized by the distortion of lung parenchyma by interstitial inflammation and/or fibrosis. The American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) international multidisciplinary consensus classification of the IIPs was published in 2002 and then updated in 2013, with the authors emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis of IIPs. The histological evaluation of IIPs is challenging, and different types of IIPs are classically associated with specific histopathological patterns. However, morphological overlaps can be observed, and the same histopathological features can be seen in totally different clinical settings. Therefore, the pathologist\'s aim is to recognize the pathologic-morphologic pattern of disease in this clinical setting, and only after multi-disciplinary evaluation, if there is concordance between clinical and radiological findings, a definitive diagnosis of specific IIP can be established, allowing the optimal clinical-therapeutic management of the patient.

UNASSIGNED: The new diagnostic guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) did not rule out the possibility of combining the radiological patterns of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and probable UIP, given the similar management and diagnostic capacity. However, the prognostic implications of these patterns have not been fully elucidated, with different studies showing heterogeneous results. We applied the new criteria to a retrospective series of patients with IPF, assessing survival based on radiological patterns, findings, and their extension.
UNASSIGNED: Two thoracic radiologists reviewed high-resolution computed tomography images taken at diagnosis in 146 patients with IPF, describing the radiological findings and patterns. The association of each radiological finding and radiological patterns with two-year mortality was analysed.
UNASSIGNED: The two-year mortality rate was 40.2% in IPF patients with an UIP radiological pattern versus 7.1% in those with probable UIP. Compared to the UIP pattern, probable UIP was protective against mortality, even after adjusting for age, sex, pulmonary function, and extent of fibrosis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.99). Receiving antifibrotic treatment was also a protective factor (HR 0.51, 95%CI 0.27-0.98). Honeycombing (HR 3.62, 95%CI 1.27-10.32), an acute exacerbation pattern (HR 4.07, 95%CI 1.84-8.96), and the overall extent of fibrosis (HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.02-1.06) were predictors of mortality.
UNASSIGNED: In our series, two-year mortality was higher in patients with IPF who presented a radiological pattern of UIP versus probable UIP on the initial scan. Honeycombing, an acute exacerbation pattern, and a greater overall extent of fibrosis were also predictors of increased mortality. The prognostic differences between the radiological pattern of UIP and probable UIP in our series would support maintaining them as two differentiated patterns.

While idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the most common type of fibrotic lung disease, there are numerous other causes of pulmonary fibrosis that are often characterized by lung injury and inflammation. Although often gradually progressive and responsive to immune modulation, some cases may progress rapidly with reduced survival rates (similar to IPF) and with imaging features that overlap with IPF, including usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)-pattern disease characterized by peripheral and basilar predominant reticulation, honeycombing, and traction bronchiectasis or bronchiolectasis. Recently, the term progressive pulmonary fibrosis has been used to describe non-IPF lung disease that over the course of a year demonstrates clinical, physiologic, and/or radiologic progression and may be treated with antifibrotic therapy. As such, appropriate categorization of the patient with fibrosis has implications for therapy and prognosis and may be facilitated by considering the following categories: (a) radiologic UIP pattern and IPF diagnosis, (b) radiologic UIP pattern and non-IPF diagnosis, and (c) radiologic non-UIP pattern and non-IPF diagnosis. By noting increasing fibrosis, the radiologist contributes to the selection of patients in which therapy with antifibrotics can improve survival. As the radiologist may be first to identify developing fibrosis and overall progression, this article reviews imaging features of pulmonary fibrosis and their significance in non-IPF-pattern fibrosis, progressive pulmonary fibrosis, and implications for therapy. Keywords: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis, Thin-Section CT, Usual Interstitial Pneumonia © RSNA, 2024.

BACKGROUND: We proposed the term \"UIPAF\" to define patients with Usual Interstitial Pneumonia (UIP) associated with only one domain of the classification called \"Interstitial Pneumonia with Autoimmune Features\" (IPAF). The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical presentation and prognosis of UIPAF patients, compared with two cohorts, composed of IPAF and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients, respectively.
METHODS: The patients were enrolled as IPAF, UIPAF, or IPF based on clinical, serological, and radiological data and evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
RESULTS: We enrolled 110 patients with IPF, 69 UIPAF, and 123 IPAF subjects. UIPAF patients were similar to IPAF regarding autoimmune features, except for the prevalence of Rheumatoid Factor in UIPAF and anti-SSA in IPAF. A similar proportion of the two cohorts progressed toward a specific autoimmune disease (SAD), with differences in the kind of SAD developed. The real-life management and prognosis of UIPAF patients proved to be almost identical to IPF.
CONCLUSIONS: UIPAF shared with IPAF similar autoimmune features, suggesting the opportunity to be considered IPAF, excluding the morphological domain by the classification. However, the real-life management and prognosis of UIPAF are similar to IPF. These data suggest a possible modification in the therapeutic management of UIPAF.

Histopathologic criteria of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) were defined over the years and endorsed by leading organizations decades after Dr. Averill A. Liebow first coined the term UIP in the 1960s as a distinct pathologic pattern of fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Novel technology and recent research on interstitial lung diseases with genetic component shed light on molecular pathogenesis of UIP/IPF. Two antifibrotic agents introduced in the mid-2010s opened a new era of therapeutic approaches to UIP/IPF, albeit contentious issues regarding their efficacy, side effects, and costs. Recently, the concept of progressive pulmonary fibrosis was introduced to acknowledge additional types of progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases with the clinical and pathologic phenotypes comparable to those of UIP/IPF. Likewise, some authors have proposed a paradigm shift by considering UIP as a stand-alone diagnostic entity to encompass other fibrosing interstitial lung diseases that manifest a relentless progression as in IPF. These trends signal a pendulum moving toward the tendency of lumping diagnoses, which poses a risk of obscuring potentially important information crucial to both clinical and research purposes. Recent advances in whole slide imaging for digital pathology and artificial intelligence technology could offer an unprecedented opportunity to enhance histopathologic evaluation of interstitial lung diseases. However, current clinical practice trends of moving away from surgical lung biopsies in interstitial lung disease patients may become a limiting factor in this endeavor as it would be difficult to build a large histopathologic database with correlative clinical data required for artificial intelligence models.

Background  Decisions on the management of interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and prognostication require an accurate diagnosis. It has been proposed that multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings for ILD (ILD-MDT) improve these decisions in challenging cases of ILD. However, most studies in this field have been based on the decisions of individual clinicians and there are few reports on the outcomes of the ILD-MDT approach. We therefore describe the experience of the ILD-MDT meetings at our institution. Methods  A single-center retrospective review of the electronic health care records of patients discussed in the ILD-MDT meetings at our institution from February 2016 to January 2021 was performed. At out institution, at each ILD-MDT meeting, the referring pulmonologist presents the clinical history and the results of all relevant investigations including serology, blood gas analyses, lung function tests, bronchoscopy, and bronchoalveolar lavage. A radiologist then describes the imaging including serial computed tomography (CT) scans. When available, the findings on lung biopsy are presented by a pathologist. Subsequent discussions lead to a consensus on the diagnosis and further management. Results  The study included 121 patients, comprising 71 (57%) males and 76 nonsmokers (62.8%), with a mean age of 65 years (range: 25-93 years). The average number of comorbidities was 2.4 (range: 0-7). Imaging-based diagnoses were usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)/chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) in 32 (26%) patients, UIP in 20 (17%) patients, probable UIP in 27 (22%) patients, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia in 11 (9%) patients, and indeterminate interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in 10 (8%) patients. The most common consensus clinical diagnosis after an ILD-MDT discussion was chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in 17 patients (14%), followed by idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and connective tissue disease associated interstitial lung disease in 16 patients (13%), CHP in 11 patients (9.1%), and ILA in 10 patients (8.4%). Only a 42 patients (35%) required surgical lung biopsy for confirmation of the diagnosis. Conclusion  This study describes the characteristics of the patients discussed in the ILD-MDT meetings with emphasis on their clinical, radiological, and laboratory data to reach a diagnosis and management plan. The decisions on commencement of antifibrotics or immunosuppressive therapy for patients with various ILDs are also made during these ILD-MDT meetings. This descriptive study could help other health care professionals regarding the structure of their ILD-MDT meetings and with discussions about diagnostic and care decisions for diffused parenchymal lung disease patients.

Usual Interstitial Pneumonia (UIP) is characterized by progression of lung parenchyma that may be observed in various autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs), including rheumatoid arthritis and connective tissue diseases. From a diagnostic point of view, a UIP pattern related to ARDs may display imaging and pathological features able to distinguish it from that related to IPF, such as the \"straight-edge\" sign at HRCT and lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates at histologic specimens. Multidisciplinary approach (MDD), involving at least pulmonologist, rheumatologist and radiologist, is fundamental in the differential diagnosis process, but MDD is also required in the evaluation of severity, progression and response to treatment, that is based on the combination of changes in symptoms, pulmonary function trends, and, in selected patients, serial CT evaluation. Differently from IPF, in patients with ARDs both functional evaluation and patient-reported outcomes may be affected by systemic involvement and comorbidities, including musculoskeletal manifestations of disease. Finally, in regards to pharmacological treatment, immunosuppressants have been considered the cornerstone of therapy, despite the lack of solid evidence in most cases; recently, antifibrotic drugs were also proposed for the treatment of progressive fibrosing ILDs other than IPF. In ARD-ILD, the therapeutic choice should balance the need for the control of systemic and lung involvements with the risk of adverse events from multi-morbidities and -therapies. Purpose of this review is to summarize the definition, the radiological and morphological features of the UIP pattern in ARDs, together with risk factors, diagnostic criteria, prognostic evaluation, monitoring and management approaches of the UIP-ARDs.

Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) refers to a combination of radiologic and histologic findings, which include patchy interstitial fibrosis with fibroblastic foci and dense acellular collagen that causes architectural distortion due to scarring and honeycomb change with alternating areas of normal lungs. The UIP pattern is not a synonymous term with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). IPF is diagnosed when an etiologic workup has been performed, deemed to be unrevealing, with a radiologic or histologic UIP pattern. While the 2018 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline categories of UIP help eliminate the need for surgical lung biopsy (SLB) in two categories, i.e., \"definite UIP\" and \"probable UIP,\" when characterizing a patient in the other categories, clinicians should wary about prolonging SLB in patients to determine the fibrosis pattern. Changes in the treatment and overall prognosis of patients can occur due to SLB confirming a UIP pattern on histology. Here, we report the case of a patient with an indeterminate UIP pattern on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) with histopathologic diagnosis of UIP on SLB. With no underlying identifiable cause for the UIP pattern, the patient was diagnosed and managed as IPF, ultimately requiring lung transplantation. This case highlights the importance of pursuing surgical lung biopsy in patients with indeterminate UIP on HRCT scanning to facilitate prompt treatment and guide further management.

UNASSIGNED: Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) is a pattern of interstitial pneumonia that is caused by different etiologies. This study aimed to investigate the transplant-free survival (TFS) and the decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) of the patients with UIP and probable UIP patterns on CT caused by various underlying conditions.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, enrolling patients with interstitial lung disease exhibiting a CT pattern consistent with UIP or probable UIP. Clinical and prognostic data of patients categorized by the etiology were compared.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 591 patients were included and classified into the following groups: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (n = 320), connective tissue disease (CTD)-UIP (n = 229), asbestosis-UIP (n = 28), and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP)-UIP (n = 14). Advanced age, elevated levels of serum cytokeratin fraction 21-1 and percentage of neutrophils in bronchoalveolar lavage were observed in all groups. IPF patients showed a more rapid decline in FVC (133.9 mL/year) compared to CTD-UIP (24.5 mL/year, p = 0.001) and asbestosis-UIP (61.0 mL/year, p = 0.008) respectively. Sub-analysis of CTD-UIP revealed that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-UIP (88.1 mL/year) or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV)-UIP (72.9 mL/year) experienced a faster deterioration in FVC compared to those with primary Sjögren\'s syndrome (pSS)-UIP (25.9 mL/year, p < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that IPF had the poorest TFS (median 55.9 months), followed by HP-UIP (57.5 months), CTD-UIP (66.7 months), and asbestosis-UIP (TFS not reached). RA-UIP or AAV-UIP did not exhibit any prognostic advantages compared to IPF, while asbestosis-UIP and pSS-UIP showed better survival rates.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with UIP caused by different underlying conditions share certain common features, but the trajectories of disease progression and survival outcomes differ.