The DIAMORFOSIS (DIAgnosis and Management Of lung canceR and FibrOSIS) survey: international survey and call for consensus

Background: Currently there is major lack of agreement on the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and lung cancer. Our aim was to identify variations in diagnostic and management strategies across different institutions and provide rationale for a consensus statement on this issue. Methods: This was a joint-survey by European Respiratory Society (ERS) Assemblies 8, 11 and 12. The survey consisted of 25 questions. Results: Four hundred and ninety-four (n=494) physicians from 68 different countries and five continents responded to the survey. Ninety-four per cent of participants were pulmonologists, 1.8% thoracic surgeons and 1.9% oncologists; 97.7% were involved in multidisciplinary team approaches on diagnosis and management. Regular low-dose high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan was used by 49.5% of the respondents to screen for lung cancer in IPF. Positron emission tomography (PET) scan and endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is performed by 60% and 88% to diagnose nodular lesions with mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with advanced and mild IPF, respectively. Eighty-three per cent of respondents continue anti-fibrotics following lung cancer diagnosis; safety precautions during surgical interventions including low tidal volume are applied by 67%. Stereotactic radiotherapy is used to treat patients with advanced IPF (diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) <35%) and otherwise operable nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by 54% of respondents and doublet platinum regimens and immunotherapy for metastatic disease by 25% and 31.9%, respectively. Almost all participants (93%) replied that a consensus statement for the management of these patients is highly warranted. Conclusion: The diagnosis and management of IPF-lung cancer (LC) is heterogeneous with most respondents calling for a consensus statement

A New Method for the Assessment of Myalgia in Interstitial Lung Disease: Association with Positivity for Myositis-Specific and Myositis-Associated Antibodies

In this study, it was found that myositis-specific and myositis-associated antibodies (MSAs and MAAs) improved the recognition of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients. The objective of this study is to propose a clinical method to evaluate myalgia in respiratory settings as a possible tool for the recognition of MSA/MAA positivity in ILD patients. We prospectively enrolled 167 ILD patients with suspected myositis, of which 63 had myalgia evoked at specific points (M+ILD+). We also enrolled in a 174 patients with only myalgia (M+ILD-) in a rheumatological setting. The patients were assessed jointly by rheumatologists and pulmonologists and were tested for autoantibodies. M+ILD+ patients were positive for at least one MAA/MSA in 68.3% of cases, as were M-ILD+ patients in 48.1% of cases and M+ILD- patients in 17.2% of cases (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02). Myalgia was significantly associated with positivity for MSA/MAAs in ILD patients (p = 0.01, X2: 6.47). In conclusion, myalgia in ILD patients with suspected myositis is associated with MSA/MAA positivity, and could support a diagnosis of IIM. A significant proportion of M+ILD- patients also had MSA/MAA positivity, a phenomenon warranting further study to evaluate its clinical meaning

Management of Acute Exacerbation of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Specialised and Non-specialised ILD Centres Around the World

Background: Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) is a severe complication associated with a high mortality. However, evidence and guidance on management is sparse. The aim of this international survey was to assess differences in prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies for AE-IPF in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres worldwide. Material and Methods: Pulmonologists working in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres were invited to participate in a survey designed by an international expert panel. Responses were evaluated in respect to the physicians’ institutions. Results: Three hundred and two (65%) of the respondents worked in a specialised ILD centre, 134 (29%) in a non-specialised pulmonology centre. Similarities were frequent with regards to diagnostic methods including radiology and screening for infection, treatment with corticosteroids, use of high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation in critical ill patients and palliative strategies. However, differences were significant in terms of the use of KL-6 and pathogen testing in urine, treatments with cyclosporine and recombinant thrombomodulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critical ill patients as well as antacid medication and anaesthesia measures as preventive methods. Conclusion: Despite the absence of recommendations, approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of AE-IPF are comparable in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres, yet certain differences in the managements of AE-IPF exist. Clinical trials and guidelines are needed to improve patient care and prognosis in AE-IPF