The place of the bronchoalveolar lavage in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease: a descriptive and qualitative study
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Background: Interstitial lung disease represents a challenge and consists in more than 200 entities. Their diagnoses are assessed through a multidisciplinary approach including pulmonologists, radiologists, pathologists and biologists. BAL analysis is useful mainly when clinical and radiological findings aren’t suggestive of an etiology. Even if, the indication of BAL is consensual, its real place as a diagnostic mean remains non consensual.
Aim: To describe the BAL findings and to analyse the perceptions of the pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists implicated in the interpretation of the BAL data, that are related to the presentation and the validity of the results.
Methods: the authors performed a descriptive study about BAL results during an 8-year-period (2010-2018) and a qualitative study assessing the pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists’ opinions concerning the different results performed in the same institution. Two questionnaires were conceived with participation of different experts and satisfaction scores were calculated.
Results: 2508 BAL were recorded including 1320 women (53%) and 1188 men (47%) with a sex-ratio (H/F) of 0,9. The mean age of the patients was 51 years. The mean response delay was 3.25 days. An accurate diagnosis was retained in 24.3%. It consisted in infection evoked in 13.89% cases. Eosinophilic pneumonia was evoked in 0.35% cases. 15.01% cases presented erythrophagocytosis with a golde score>100 favouring active alveolar haemorrhage with occult alveolar haemorrhage. Lipoproteinosis was diagnosed in 2 cases. Adenocarcinoma was retained in 1.04% cases and lymphoma in 0.16% cases. Langerhans cell histiocytosis was confirmed in 1.51% cases. In the other cases, cellular profile was not specific evoking tuberculosis or sarcoidosis in 316 cases with a CD4/CD8 ratio superior to 1,6 and the diagnoses of tuberculosis or hypersensitivity pneumonia in 202 cases with a CD4/CD8 ratio inferior to 1,2. Concerning the questionnaire-based study, 50 pulmonologists and anaesthesiologists attributed a mean score of 7.96/10 (DS=0.55) concerning the presentation of the results and 9.28/15 (DS=0.77) concerning the quality and validity of the results. On the other hand, the mean satisfaction score rated by pathologists reached 24/40.
Conclusion: BAL results could be helpful for the management of interstitial lung disease depending on the experience of pathologists and a good communication between pulmonologists, anaesthesiologists and pathologists.
Keywords:
bronchoalveolar lavage, interstitial lung disease, satisfaction##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
References
- 1. Travis WD, Costabel U, Hansell DM, King TE, Lynch DA, Nicholson AG, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: Update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;188(6):733-48. 2. Gharsalli H, Mlika M, Sahnoun I, Maalej S, Douik El Gharbi L, Mezni F El. The utility of bronchoalveolar lavage in the evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: A clinicopathological perspective. Semin Diagn Pathol [Internet]. Elsevier Inc.; 2018;35(5):280-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2018.08.003 3. Furini F, Carnevale A, Casoni GL, Guerrini G, Cavagna L, Govoni M, et al. The role of the multidisciplinary evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: Systematic literature review of the current evidence and future perspectives. Front Med. 2019;6(October). 4. Meyer KC, Raghu G, Baughman RP, Brown KK, Costabel U, Du Bois RM, et al. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: The clinical utility of bronchoalveolar lavage cellular analysis in interstitial lung disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;185(9):1004-14. 5. Balbi B, Pignatti P, Corradi M, Baiardi P, Bianchi L, Brunetti G, et al. Bronchoalveolar lavage, sputum and exhaled clinically relevant inflammatory markers: Values in healthy adults. Eur Respir J. 2007;30(4):769-81. 6. Chellapandian DB, Lehrnbecher T, Phillips B, Fisher BT, Zaoutis TE, Steinbach WJ, et al. Bronchoalveolar lavage and lung biopsy in patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(5):501-9. 7. Mlika M, Kilani M Ben, Berraies A, Braham E, Hamzaoui A, Mezni F, et al. apport diagnostique du lavage broncho-alvéolaire dans les pneumopathies interstitielles diffuses Diagnostic value of the bronchoalveolar lavage in interstitial lung disease. 2013;94(5):375-84. 8. Efared B, Ebang-Atsame G, Rabiou S, Diarra AS, Tahiri L, Hammas N, et al. The diagnostic value of the bronchoalveolar lavage in interstitial lung diseases. J Negat Results Biomed. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine; 2017;16(1):1-6. 9. Welker L, Jörres RA, Costabel U, Magnussen H. Predictive value of BAL cell differentials in the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases. Eur Respir J. 2004;24(6):1000-6. 10. Lee W, Chung WS, Hong KS, Huh J. Clinical usefulness of bronchoalveolar lavage cellular analysis and lymphocyte subsets in diffuse interstitial lung diseases. Ann Lab Med. 2015;35(2):220-5. 11. Caillaud DM, Vergnon JM, Madroszyk A, Melloni BM, Murris M, Dalphin JC. Bronchoalveolar lavage in hypersensitivity pneumonitis: A series of 139 patients. Inflamm Allergy - Drug Targets. 2012;11(1):15-9. 12. Bacha D, Ayadi-Kaddour A, Ismail O, El Mezni F. Bronchoalveolar lavage impact in sarcoidosis: Study of 40 cases. Tunisie Medicale. 2009;87(1):38-42. 13. Barrera L, Mendoza F, Zuñiga J, Estrada A, Zamora AC, Melendro EI, et al. Functional diversity of T-cell subpopulations in subacute and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;177(1):44-55. 14. Danila E, Norkuniene J, Jurgauskiene L, Malickaite R. Diagnostic role of BAL fluid CD4CD8 ratio in different radiographic and clinical forms of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Clin Respir J. 2009;3(4):214-21. 15. Kantrow SP, Meyer KC, Kidd P, Raghu G. The CD4/CD8 ratio in BAL fluid is highly variable in sarcoidosis. Eur Respir J. 1997;10(12):2716-21. 16. Thomas M, von Eiff M, Brandt B, Heinecke A, van de Loo J. Immunophenotyping of Lymphocytes in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid: A New Flow Cytometric Method vs Standard Immunoperoxidase Technique. CHEST 1995; 108:464-69.). 17. Thalheim L et al. Lymphoma immunophenotype of dogs determined by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry and polymerase chain reaction for antigen acceptor rearrangements. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007; 131 (1):50-6.) 18. Wenxin Ma et al, Improved immuno phenotyping of lymphocytes in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) by flow cytometry. Elseiver science B.V 2001; 10.1016.) 19. Diederichsen AC, et al. A comparison of flow cytometry and immunochemistry in human colorectal cancers. J Vet Intern Med 2013; 27(6): 1509-16. 20. Pérez-Arellano JL, et al. Comparison of two techniques (flow cytometry and alkaline immunophosphatase) in the evaluation of alveolar macrophage immunophenotype. Am J Respir Cell Biol 1992; 7(5):531-41) 21. Mlika M, Kasmi R, Safra I, Braham E, Chebbi C, Mezni F El. Which technique should be used in the phenotyping of lymphocytic alveolitis: Immunocytochemistry or flow cytometry. Ann Pathol [Internet]. Elsevier Masson SAS; 2017;37(5):347-54. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annpat.2017.07.002 22. Ifversen MR, et al. comparison of immunocytochemistry, real-time quantitative RT-PCR and flow cytometry for detection of minimal residual disease in neuroblastoma. Int J Oncol 2005 Jul; 27(1):121-9) 23. Paradis IL, et al, Lymphocyte Enumeration: A Comparison between a Modified Avidin-Biotin-Immunoperoxidase System and Flow Cytometry. The Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry 1984; 32(4):358-362) 24. bergman M, et al, Analysis of lympohocytes populations with flow cytometry in routine bronchoalveolar lavage diagnosis: comparaison of a 3-color method with th alkaline phosphatase anti alkaline phosphatase immunohistochemistry. J immunol Methods 1994; 172(1):59-70.) 25.Padovan C.S, et al. Immunophenotyping of lymphocyte subsets in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid: Comparison of flow cytometric and immunocytochemical techniques. Immunol Meth 1992, 147: 27-32.), 26. Lohmeyer J., et al. multiparameter flow cytometric analysis of inflammatory cells contained in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. Immunol Meth 1994, 172:59-70.) 27. Smith A.P, et al. cytometric analysis of BAL T cells labeled with a standardized antibody cocktail correlates with immunohistochemical staining. Cytometry Part B (Clinical Cytometry) 2006, 708:170-178.) 28. Pairon JC, Matrat M, Brochard P. Analyses minéralogiques d'échantillons biologiques et pathologies respiratoires. Rev Mal Respir. 2003;20(2 I):181-5. 29. Dintzis S. Improving pathologists' communication skills. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(8):802-8. 30. Lehr HA, Bosman FT. Communication skills in diagnostic pathology. Virchows Arch. 2016;468(1):61-7. 31. Snover DC. Maximizing the Value of the Endoscopist-Pathologist Partnership in the Management of Colorectal Polyps and Carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2010;20(4):641-57. 32. Uzun E, SarioÄŸlu S. Techniques for maximizing the performance of molecular pathology testing: Responsibilities of all pathologists. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2018;34(2):113-26. 33. Macaluso FS, Orlando A, Bassotti G, Rizzo AG, Armuzzi A, Villanacci V, et al. How clinicians and pathologists interact concerning inflammatory bowel disease in Italy: An IG-IBD survey. Dig Liver Dis [Internet]. Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana; 2018;50(7):734-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2018.03.020 34. Khella HWZ, Yousef GM. Translational research: Empowering the role of pathologists and cytopathologists. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(10):831-8. 35. Chetty R, Bateman AC, Torlakovic E, Wang LM, Gill P, Al-Badri A, et al. A pathologist's survey on the reporting of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67(5):426-30. 36. McCall SJ, Branton PA, Blanc VM, Dry SM, Gastier-Foster JM, Harrison JH, et al. The College of American Pathologists Biorepository Accreditation Program: Results from the First 5 Years. Biopreserv Biobank. 2018;16(1):16-22. 37. Nakhleh RE, Myers JL, Allen TC, DeYoung BR, Fitzgibbons PL, Funkhouser WK, et al. Consensus statement on effective communication of urgent diagnoses and significant, unexpected diagnoses in surgical pathology and cytopathology from the college of American pathologists and association of directors of anatomic and surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(2):148-54. 38. Afifi R, Person B, Haddad R. The impact of surgeons: Pathologists dialog on lymph node evaluation of colorectal cancer patients. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018;20(1):30-3. 39. Lindley SW, Gillies EM, Hassell LA. Communicating diagnostic uncertainty in surgical pathology reports: Disparities between sender and receiver. Pathol Res Pract. Elsevier GmbH.; 2014;210(10):628-33. 40. Cretara AD, Otis CN. Perspectives and perceptions of urgent and alert values in surgical pathology and cytopathology: A survey of clinical practitioners and pathologists. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(12):970-9.