Progression of interstitial lung disease after the Envisia Genomic Classifier
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) represents a heterogenous group of diseases that have substantial morbidity and mortality. The Envisia Genomic Classifier (EGC) is a test that analyses RNA derived from transbronchial biopsy (TBBx) samples to make a positive or negative genomic usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP) designation. Our study assesses the ability for the EGC to predict progression of disease, with a longer duration of follow-up than previous studies. Methods: Patients referred for cryobiopsy for outpatient workup of ILD concurrently had TBBx and EGC testing performed. We performed a retrospective analysis to assess differences in progression of disease between EGC-positive and negative patients, applying Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log-rank tests. Confidence in ILD diagnosis before and after the EGC result was also noted, and the difference in confidence levels was assessed by a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: 1487 median PFS days respectively. EGC-positive patients also had worse progression in the subsets of patients with "indeterminate for UIP" computed tomography (CT) (p=0.0052), "alternative diagnosis" CT (p=0.0144) and non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD diagnosis (p=0.0157). Additionally, EGC increased the diagnostic confidence level (p<0.0001). Conclusion: EGC positivity predicts worse ILD progression over a sustained follow-up period. The ability to predict worse prediction early in the ILD course without the need for surgical biopsy would have significant clinical impact.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Progression of interstitial lung disease after the Envisia Genomic Classifier
- Date Crossref
- 07/11/2024
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society (ERS)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.