Keywords
sarcoidosis, high-resolution computed tomography, chest X-ray, diagnosis
sarcoidosis, high-resolution computed tomography, chest X-ray, diagnosis
Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous disease of unclear etiology that affects the lungs and thoracic lymph nodes in over 90% of patients. The disease’s onset, course, and organ involvement are highly variable. Presentations can range from asymptomatic disease incidentally noted on chest imaging and acute disease with total resolution to chronic progressive disease resulting in end organ damage, such as pulmonary fibrosis, and death. In fact, chronic pulmonary disease and fibrosis are major causes of death in patients with sarcoidosis1. The diagnosis is generally based on clinical and radiographic findings, granulomas on biopsy, and exclusion of other granulomatous diseases, such as fungal disease, tuberculosis, and chronic beryllium disease. Classically, the chest radiograph has been used for the diagnosis and prognostication of sarcoidosis in patients with suspected disease2. Below, we compare the limitations and advantages of chest radiography versus computed tomography (CT) for the initial evaluation of pulmonary sarcoidosis.
Bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy is the most common finding on chest X-ray (CXR). Lung parenchymal findings are myriad, ranging from nodules and consolidations to irreversible fibrosis3. Scadding classified thoracic disease on CXR into five stages as described in Table 14. Staging was derived for prognostic purposes and does not represent a natural progression of pulmonary disease in sarcoidosis. Scadding reported that as the chest radiographic stage increased, there was a lower likelihood of spontaneous remission without treatment. Over five decades later, this staging system is still used to classify patients with sarcoidosis clinically, for research studies and to provide prognostic information to patients, in part because of its simplicity4–6. The ubiquity, cheap cost, and low radiation of chest radiography have also contributed to the wide use of Scadding staging.
There have been no recent recommendations to help guide the use of chest imaging; as of 1999, the official American Thoracic Society guidelines recommended CXR for initial evaluation and to preserve CT scan for patients with atypical clinical or X-ray findings or for suspicion of a complication of pulmonary disease, such as bronchiectasis or fungal superinfection7. It is not clear whether these recommendations are still appropriate or still being followed as patients receive CT scans for many routine clinical evaluations, in the emergency room and the doctor’s office.
Despite past recommendations and current wide application, the use of CXR for initial evaluation and prognostication of pulmonary sarcoidosis has clear limitations. Scadding himself recognized that his staging was useful to predict prognosis in stage I and IV disease but that there was no significant difference in prognosis between stage II and III4. We have noted this in our clinic as well and this is due in part to the following limitations.
There is significant variation in the interpretation of X-ray, even among chest radiologists. Using data from a clinical trial, Baughman et al. analyzed the interobserver variability between two chest radiologists comparing Scadding CXR staging at initial evaluation8. The authors found only fair interobserver concordance overall (weighted κ = 0.43) and fair interobserver concordance with regard to the presence of fibrosis (weighted κ = 0.51). They also noted that their chest radiologists had difficulty in agreeing on the presence of hilar lymphadenopathy and thus distinguishing stage II and III disease8.
Chest radiography has proven to be an unreliable predictor of derangements in lung function on initial evaluation. Frequency of airflow limitation generally increases with increasing stage; however, there is significant overlap between stages and, again, no significant difference between stage II and III disease9. CXR staging is especially poor in predicting exercise-induced desaturation and thus oxygen levels and, in one study, offered no further prognostic value when combined with pulmonary function test parameters, such as the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO)10.
Chest radiography has a lower sensitivity for lung parenchymal disease compared with high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest. Multiple studies have demonstrated significant rates of parenchymal disease on HRCT in patients with either Scadding stage 0 (no disease) or Scadding stage I (nodal disease only) on initial X-ray evaluation11,12. Often, patients with stage 0 or I disease have demonstrated pulmonary impairment on lung function testing, suggesting that these patients have parenchymal or airway disease that has not been captured by CXR9. Indeed, in our clinical experience, we have noted limited prognostic value for CXR as well as poor depiction of important parenchymal findings that are visible on corresponding HRCT, as illustrated in Figure 1. We have also noted fibrotic findings on CT that were not seen on CXR, as seen in the radiograph in Figure 2.
Based on our review and interpretation of the literature, we posit that HRCT may be a better method for the initial evaluation of patients with suspected or confirmed sarcoidosis. HRCT is able to evaluate the lungs and airways with much higher resolution than CXR, in multiple planes, and offers clinicians improved sensitivity and specificity for detecting lung abnormalities2.
Classically, HRCT reveals bilateral hilar lymphadenopathy and micronodules in the lung parenchyma with a perilymphatic distribution (Figure 1). Lung findings are often more prominent in the upper lung fields. HRCT can also detect specific patterns and distribution of parenchymal and airway abnormalities that can have clinical implications. Bronchial thickening or narrowing can be detected by HRCT and is usually predictive of granulomatous disease of the airway seen on fiberoptic survey. Extrinsic findings, such as traction bronchiectasis and bronchovascular distortion, can be detected on CT. Mosaic attenuation seen on CT can be predictive of air trapping, an indicator of airway disease13.
HRCT is more sensitive in revealing fibrosis and diagnosing end-stage disease. In various studies, fibrosis has been seen in 20–50% of patients, which is much higher than the 5–10% rate estimated by using CXR on initial evaluation14. Detection of an increased frequency of fibrosis in these patients does not appear to be a trivial finding, as the presence and the pattern of fibrosis are associated with more progressive derangements in lung function, as discussed below. In addition to having a higher sensitivity of lung parenchymal findings, HRCT is better able to demonstrate lymphadenopathy and findings consistent with pulmonary hypertension, a potential complication of sarcoidosis.
In one study of 80 patients with sarcoidosis, there was variable interobserver reliability (κ = 0.36–0.78) between chest radiologists for specific findings on HRCT, such as bronchovascular bundle thickening, reticulation, and consolidation11. However, when HRCTs were evaluated using a validated semi-quantitative score of overall severity derived by Oberstein et al.12, there was excellent interobserver reliability (κ = 0.99).
The use of a standardized assessment of HRCT (Oberstein score) not only proved reproducible but also demonstrated a statistically significant correlation with derangements in functional parameters, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and DLCO as well as resting and exertional arterial oxygenation11. Not only is overall severity associated with decreased lung function but also specific findings on HRCT are predictive of different patterns of abnormal physiology. Abehsera et al. described the HRCT findings in a cohort of patients with end-stage disease and identified three distinct patterns of fibrosis in these patients: architectural distortion, linear fibrosis, and honeycombing15. Architectural distortion was associated with obstruction on pulmonary function tests, whereas honeycombing was associated with restriction and reduction in DLCO. Linear fibrosis was not associated with functional impairment15; nothing similar has been noted with Scadding stage alone.
Sarcoidosis is increasingly diagnosed via endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided biopsy, which has increased the value of HRCT and its ability to identify the exact size and location of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes16,17. This often spares patients the morbidity of surgical biopsy. Detecting patterns of lung disease on HRCT also allows better evaluation of active versus irreversible lung disease. Oberstein et al. were able to detect higher inflammatory markers in both serum and bronchoalveolar lavage associated with intrapulmonary nodules and involvement of the bronchovascular bundle12. This may guide treatment decisions in the future, although further investigation is necessary. As noted above, HRCT has higher sensitivity in detecting fibrotic disease as compared with CXR and this may have implications for treatment or treatment response or both.
In a retrospective study, Walsh et al. derived an algorithm of independent variables that predicted mortality in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis18. They found that two CT variables—fibrosis in 20% of lung fields and pulmonary artery diameter—as well as a composite of physiologic variables produced a staging system to predict prognosis in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis18. Whether these results will be confirmed in other sarcoidosis groups or whether there are other uses of CT needs to be determined. Death is usually a distant occurrence in patients with sarcoidosis, so other outcomes, such as change in pulmonary function or exercise capacity, may further highlight the prognostic value of HRCT.
Current guidelines for the initial evaluation of sarcoidosis are stuck in the 1960s, when Scadding staging with CXR was first derived, recommending CXR for initial evaluation of patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis. We recommend HRCT of the chest during initial evaluation, as it offers better definition of lung parenchymal and airway abnormalities as well as vascular structures (which were beyond the discussion we could undertake in this article), detection of reversible versus irreversible disease, and some prediction of disease course. We recognize the risks of HRCT, including radiation and the possibility of unnecessary workup for incidental findings. For follow-up, patients with remitting or stable disease would be well served by a yearly CXR, although when there are changes in clinical course or suspicion for new complications of their underlying disease, repeat HRCT may be of use. As we further understand abnormalities in pulmonary sarcoidosis and develop new targeted treatments, HRCT and its ability to depict specific lesions and patterns may gain even greater value. With the aid of further research, it is time to come up with a new, uniform, staging system that takes into account specific CT patterns and helps prognosticate disease course, pulmonary impairment, and treatment response. Having a baseline CT for patients now may become even more important for a patient’s treatment in the future and will move our current care of these patients into the 21st century.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 16 May 18 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)