Use of a Genomic Classifier in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease: A Systematic Review

Kheir, Fayez; Becerra, Juan Pablo Uribe; Bissell, Brittany D; Ghazipura, Marya; Herman, Derrick; Hon, Stephanie; Hossain, Tanzib; Khor, Yet H.; Knight, Shandra L; Kreuter, Michael; Macrea, Madalina; Mammen, Manoj J.; Martínez, Fernando J.; Poletti, Venerino; Troy, Lauren; Raghu, Ganesh; Wilson, Kevin C.

doi:10.1513/annalsats.202102-197oc

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been significant recent research interest into novel tools to increase diagnostic yield and accuracy in ILD diagnosis, including the use of genomic classifier testing ( 54 ).…”

Section: Recent Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing interstitial lung disease by multidisciplinary discussion: A review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) has been endorsed in current international consensus guidelines as the gold standard method for diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In the absence of an accurate and reliable diagnostic test, the agreement between multidisciplinary meetings has been used as a surrogate marker for diagnostic accuracy. Although the ILD MDM has been shown to improve inter-clinician agreement on ILD diagnosis, result in a change in diagnosis in a significant proportion of patients and reduce unclassifiable diagnoses, the ideal form for an ILD MDM remains unclear, with constitution and processes of ILD MDMs varying greatly around the world. It is likely that this variation of practice contributes to the lack of agreement seen between MDMs, as well as suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. A recent Delphi study has confirmed the essential components required for the operation of an ILD MDM. The ILD MDM is a changing entity, as it incorporates new diagnostic tests and genetic markers, while also adapting in its form in response to the obstacles of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding ILD MDM and their role in the diagnosis of ILD, the practice of ILD MDM around the world, approaches to ILD MDM standardization and future directions to improve diagnostic accuracy in ILD.

show abstract

“…There has been significant recent research interest into novel tools to increase diagnostic yield and accuracy in ILD diagnosis, including the use of genomic classifier testing ( 54 ).…”

Section: Recent Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosing interstitial lung disease by multidisciplinary discussion: A review

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The committee did not make a recommendation for the use of an additional genomic classifier test in patients with ILD who are being diagnosed for UIP through transbronchial forceps biopsy, due to a lack of consensus between the members. Although the systematic review that was analysed to make an informed decision on this topic did not lead to a recommendation, the experts agreed that the use of genomic classifier testing should be revised if new studies are being published [5].…”

Section: New Guidelines For Ipf and Ppfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There remains an unmet need for additional treatments that can be used alone or with existing antifibrotic therapies. In preclinical studies, the preferential PDE4B inhibitor BI 1015550 demonstrated anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects [5].…”

Section: Novel Pde4b Inhibitor Offers Breakthrough For Ipfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medicom Conference Report ATS 2022

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among their arguments, they state the risk of bleeding from transbronchial biopsy is low (9). The guideline committee was aware the risk of bleeding from transbronchial biopsy is lower than the bleeding risks from transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, even though the study that Dr. Scholand et al cite was not included in the guideline's systematic review because it did not meet the pre-specified selection criteria (10). The bottom line remains, there were good arguments on both sides, but insufficient agreement to yield a recommendation according to the committee's pre-specified voting rules.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%