Radiological determinants of overall survival in a Turkish cohort of patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: To assess whether computed tomography imaging features associate with survival in fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). Methods: Consecutive patients with volumetric CTs from Izmir, Turkey, diagnosed with HP by multidisciplinary team evaluation were studied. Honeycombing, reticulation and ground glass opacification were measured semi-quantitatively by a thoracic radiologist. Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards models, were initially adjusted using age, gender, FVC (%-predicted) and designation of HP (typical, compatible, indeterminate). This was compared to a model additionally adjusted using: pulmonary artery diameter (mm), honeycombing, reticulation and ground glass opacification (all % of lung). Results: Of 157 participants 101 died over the study period: median age=65 (IQR=58, 72) males=59%; median follow up time=2.9 years (IQR=1.24, 5.51 years). FVC (%-predicted) was associated with worse survival (HR=0.98, 0.96-0.99, p<0.001). Higher extent of all three radiological measures: honeycombing, (HR=1.08, 1.03-1.14, p=0.003), reticulation (HR=1.04, 1.01-1.03, p<0.001) and ground glass opacification (HR=1.02, 1.01-1.03], p=0.003) were associated with worse survival. A model combining FVC and radiological measures showed an improved C-index (0.76) compared to the model with clinical variables only (0.70). Interpretation: Semi-quantitative measures of interstitial damage predict survival in HP patients.
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
- Radiological determinants of overall survival in a Turkish cohort of patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis
- Date Crossref
- 27/09/2025
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-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.