ライフサイエンスコーパス: UIP

1 UIP identified on high-resolution computed tomography (H

2 UIP was identified in 33/65 (50.8%) SLB, and 81.5% were

3 traction bronchiectasis, honeycombing, and a UIP pattern than those with nonfibrotic HP (P = .015, P

4 and lower zone predominance was considered a UIP pattern.

5 These results suggest that recognition of a UIP pattern by the Envisia Genomic Classifier combined w

6 are in patients with extensive fibrosis or a UIP pattern on CT.

7 ocyte proportion was rare in patients with a UIP pattern (8 of 135; 5.9%) or with extensive fibrosis

8 In patients without a UIP pattern or with limited fibrosis, a BAL lymphocyte p

9 radiologists when assessing ILD features and UIP pattern diagnosis but little evidence on agreement o

10 baseline, presence of honeycomb in HRCT, and UIP histologic pattern were found to be predictors of su

11 Pflex (Cstart), compliance between Pflex and UIP (Cinf), and compliance between UIP and peak pressure

12 Conclusions: Deep learning-based UIP probability on HRCT provides enhanced outcome predic

13 Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis (PIOPED)-based UIP probability categories (UIP not included in the diff

14 Pflex and UIP (Cinf), and compliance between UIP and peak pressure (Cend) for the inflation limb, and

15 ance associated with the distinction between UIP and fibrotic NSIP.

16 or patients with NSIP than for those in both UIP groups (p < 0.001), although survival in the two UIP

17 ificantly increased the synthesis of CCL7 by UIP fibroblasts.

18 s (PIOPED)-based UIP probability categories (UIP not included in the differential, 0-4%; low probabil

19 mparisons), with more fibrosis in concordant UIP (2.13 +/- 0.62) than in discordant UIP (1.42 +/- 0.7

20 Guideline-defined UIP and fHP patterns each helped risk-stratify patients

21 se trials represented patients with definite UIP and a large subgroup of patients with possible UIP.

22 l fibrosis were not essential for diagnosing UIP in TBLC, provided that other guideline criteria feat

23 rdant UIP (2.13 +/- 0.62) than in discordant UIP (1.42 +/- 0.73), fibrotic NSIP (0.83 +/- 0.58), or c

24 all lobes were categorized as concordant for UIP (n = 51) and those with UIP in at least one lobe wer

25 Patients concordant for UIP were older (63 +/- 9 [mean +/- SD] yr; p < 0.05 as c

26 all other groups) than those discordant for UIP (57 +/- 12 yr) or with fibrotic NSIP (56 +/- 11 yr)

27 one lobe were categorized as discordant for UIP (n = 28).

28 We show that MVD is higher for UIP than for non-UIP and is associated with mortality in

29 CD105 and CD31 were higher for UIP than for non-UIP, with CD105 reaching statistical si

30 bility of UIP, 70-94%; and pathognomonic for UIP, 95-100%), and their prognostic utility was assessed

31 P in any lobe should be classified as having UIP.

32 00%), respectively, for both histopathologic UIP and clinical diagnosis of IPF.

33 sifier, accurately predicted histopathologic UIP.Objectives: We evaluated the combined accuracy of th

34 However, UIP, PMC, Cinf, and Cdef increased as the PIP increased.

35 itial pneumonia (UIP)-like features on HRCT (UIP probability), in a large cohort of well-characterize

36 e, the Envisia Genomic Classifier identified UIP regardless of HRCT pattern.

37 Local radiologists identified UIP in 18 of 53 patients with UIP histopathology, with a

38 re that distinguishes RA-UIP from idiopathic UIP.

39 cal clinical and HRCT features of idiopathic UIP, neither prednisone nor colchicine resulted in objec

40 hic usual interstitial pneumonia (idiopathic UIP) were entered into a randomized prospective treatmen

41 historical control subjects with idiopathic UIP, and was more consistent with survival previously re

42 expressed at significantly higher levels in UIP lung biopsies compared with biopsies from patients w

43 Survival was lower in UIP than in fibrotic NSIP (p = 0.001) but not in patient

44 ant STAT3 signaling plays a critical role in UIP/IPF pathogenesis.

45 trends have considerable prognostic value in UIP and NSIP.

46 f the usual interstitial pneumonia type (IPF/UIP) were reviewed.

47 0 deaths during a median follow-up of 42 mo (UIP, 89%; NSIP, 61%, DIP/RBILD, 0%).

48 atients with anti-CCP antibody may have more UIP pattern and lower DLCO.Trial Registration Retrospect

49 patients with nonextensive fibrosis or a non-UIP pattern.

50 c usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and non-UIP were assessed using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney tes

51 show that MVD is higher for UIP than for non-UIP and is associated with mortality in patients with fI

52 05 and CD31 were higher for UIP than for non-UIP, with CD105 reaching statistical significance (P = 0

53 nd non-IPF diagnosis, and (c) radiologic non-UIP pattern and non-IPF diagnosis.

54 : 12 were diagnosed with UIP and 15 with non-UIP ILD.

55 honeycombing on HRCT and/or confirmation of UIP by biopsy versus patients without either, using pool

56 honeycombing on HRCT and/or confirmation of UIP by biopsy.

57 fier and local radiology in the detection of UIP pattern.Methods: Ninety-six patients who had diagnos

58 lung biopsy for histopathology diagnosis of UIP when radiology and clinical context are not definiti

59 A "molecular diagnosis of UIP" in transbronchial lung biopsy, the Envisia Genomic

60 ristic computed tomographic (CT) features of UIP are predominantly basal and peripheral reticular pat

61 The fibroblast foci of UIP are the leading edge of a complex reticulum that is

62 patients with UIP or NSIP, the mortality of UIP remained higher, p < 0.01, but the 5-yr survival in

63 h IIP, patients with a histologic pattern of UIP in any lobe should be classified as having UIP.

64 In conjunction with HRCT patterns of UIP, the Envisia Classifier results identified 24 additi

65 The TBLC features predictive of UIP in the paired SLB and predictive features of overall

66 psy (n = 22) demonstrated a preponderance of UIP and diffuse alveolar damage.

67 ostic significance of UIP, the prevalence of UIP in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and its strong rad

68 y of UIP, 5-29%; intermediate probability of UIP, 30-69%; high probability of UIP, 70-94%; and pathog

69 n the differential, 0-4%; low probability of UIP, 5-29%; intermediate probability of UIP, 30-69%; hig

70 bability of UIP, 30-69%; high probability of UIP, 70-94%; and pathognomonic for UIP, 95-100%), and th

71 f pentachrome-stained histologic sections of UIP was performed.

72 justified by the prognostic significance of UIP, the prevalence of UIP in idiopathic pulmonary fibro

73 Staining of UIP lung biopsy specimens demonstrated that phosphorylat

74 uent in DIP/RBILD than in NSIP (p < 0.01) or UIP (p < 0.0005).

75 c index) at 6 and 12 months in 104 patients (UIP, n = 63; fibrotic NSIP, n = 41).

76 SOFIA-PIOPED UIP probability categories remained prognostically signi

77 athologists as usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) (47%), NSIP (36%), or desquamative interstitial pne

78 gic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and clinical IPF.

79 deline-defined usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fHP) pat

80 een histologic usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and non-UIP were assessed using a nonparametric Man

81 nction between usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), the

82 al features of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) are identified.

83 patients with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) confirmed by surgical lung biopsy.

84 HRCT), and the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) histologic pattern.

85 OOP) in 1, and usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) in 1.

86 Patients with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) in all lobes were categorized as concordant for UIP

87 predictive of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) in corresponding SLB and to identify clinical indic

88 The usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) incidence was higher in the anti-CCP antibody-posit

89 that share the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) injury pattern.

90 Rationale: Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) is the defining morphology of idiopathic pulmonary

91 of underlying usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, a review of

92 d to compare a usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern at CT with survival.

93 f fibrosis and usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern.

94 r IPF based on usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) patterns, the pooled kappa value was 0.61 (95% CI:

95 roup including usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), desquamative interstitial pneumonia (DIP), nonspec

96 onias comprise usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP), desquam

97 patients with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, and respirator

98 al features of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

99 Usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), the pathologic correlate of idiopathic pulmonary f

100 ntification of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)-like features on HRCT (UIP probability), in a large

101 IPF, including usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)-pattern disease characterized by peripheral and bas

102 with suspected usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP).

103 broblasts from usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP)/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) lungs character

104 ction point (Pflex), upper inflection point (UIP), compliance below Pflex (Cstart), compliance betwee

105 gnosed in clinical practice who had possible UIP with traction bronchiectasis on HRCT and had not und

106 d a large subgroup of patients with possible UIP.

107 n of these three features strongly predicted UIP in paired SLB (odds ratio [OR], 23.4; 95% CI, 6.36-8

108 psy in select cases when CT shows a probable UIP pattern.

109 and Main Results: BAL lymphocyte proportion, UIP pattern, and fibrosis extent were significantly and

110 60.3% (CI, 46.6-73.0%) for histology-proven UIP pattern.

111 pathway gene signature that distinguishes RA-UIP from idiopathic UIP.

112 s (13/20) and a nuclear form of p-JAK2 in RA-UIP (5/5) and a minority of IPF (6/20) cases.

113 ing the following categories: (a) radiologic UIP pattern and IPF diagnosis, (b) radiologic UIP patter

114 IP pattern and IPF diagnosis, (b) radiologic UIP pattern and non-IPF diagnosis, and (c) radiologic no

115 Methods: SOFIA and radiologist UIP probabilities were converted to Prospective Investig

116 the composite physiologic index), only SOFIA UIP probability PIOPED categories predicted survival.

117 highest in DIP/RBILD and higher in NSIP than UIP, p < 0.0005.

118 The UIP guideline criteria of "predominantly subpleural or p

119 The UIP-centric imaging approach emphasized in this review i

120 Median survival of the UIP group was 2.8 yr which is significantly worse (p < 0

121 ps (p < 0.001), although survival in the two UIP groups was comparable (p = 0.16).

122 verage age: 65.0 yr): 12 were diagnosed with UIP and 15 with non-UIP ILD.

123 sults identified 24 additional patients with UIP (sensitivity 79.2%; specificity 90.6%).Conclusions:

124 Patients with UIP have worse survival than patients with other types o

125 sts identified UIP in 18 of 53 patients with UIP histopathology, with a sensitivity of 34.0% (CI, 21.

126 When analysis was confined to patients with UIP or NSIP, the mortality of UIP remained higher, p < 0

127 fibroblast lines obtained from patients with UIP relative to patients with other IIP and patients wit

128 s concordant for UIP (n = 51) and those with UIP in at least one lobe were categorized as discordant