Update on Silicosis.

Although silicosis has been an established disease with a recognized cause for more than 100 years, many workers continue to be exposed to silica and new outbreaks of disease continue to occur. This article describes some of the well-established and new exposures, including denim sandblasting, artificial stone cutting, and some forms of "coal worker's pneumoconiosis." The authors review the imaging and pathology of acute silicosis (silicoproteinosis), simple silicosis, and progressive massive fibrosis and summarize known and putative associations of silica exposure, including tuberculosis, lung cancer, connective tissue disease (especially systemic sclerosis), and vasculitis.

Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Mesothelioma.

CONTEXT.­: Mesothelioma is an uncommon tumor that can be difficult to diagnose. OBJECTIVE.­: To provide updated, practical guidelines for the pathologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. DATA SOURCES.­: Pathologists involved in the International Mesothelioma Interest Group and others with expertise in mesothelioma contributed to this update. Reference material includes peer-reviewed publications and textbooks. CONCLUSIONS.­: There was consensus opinion regarding guidelines for (1) histomorphologic diagnosis of mesothelial tumors, including distinction of epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid mesothelioma; recognition of morphologic variants and patterns; and recognition of common morphologic pitfalls; (2) molecular pathogenesis of mesothelioma; (3) application of immunohistochemical markers to establish mesothelial lineage and distinguish mesothelioma from common morphologic differentials; (4) application of ancillary studies to distinguish benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations, including BAP1 and MTAP immunostains; novel immunomarkers such as Merlin and p53; fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for homozygous deletion of CDKN2A; and novel molecular assays; (5) practical recommendations for routine reporting of mesothelioma, including grading epithelioid mesothelioma and other prognostic parameters; (6) diagnosis of mesothelioma in situ; (7) cytologic diagnosis of mesothelioma, including use of immunostains and molecular assays; and (8) features of nonmalignant peritoneal mesothelial lesions.

Mesothelioma: morphologic and immunohistochemical findings.

This paper reviews some basic and some new concepts in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. The term "malignant mesothelioma" is no longer recommended; rather, any tumor labeled "mesothelioma" is presumed to be malignant. Clinical and radiologic information is very useful in the diagnosis of mesothelioma; in particular, nodular pleural thickening on CT is usually a marker of malignancy. The literature on markers that separate mesotheliomas from metastatic carcinomas has become very complex and frequently misleading, with many recommended markers actually demonstrating poor specificity. However, newer data show that a combination of HEG1 (clone SKM9-2) and claudin­4 staining provides extremely high accuracy in separating epithelioid mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung carcinomas with just two immunostains. This combination works at other sites as well, but caution should be used when high-grade serous carcinoma is in the differential, because all "mesothelioma" markers can also stain high-grade serous carcinomas. There are, unfortunately, no sensitive or specific markers for sarcomatoid mesotheliomas. A variety of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) markers are useful in separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations; immunohistochemal staining for BAP1, MTAP (or CDKN2A FISH), and NF2/Merlin (or NF2 FISH) will enable the diagnosis of most mesotheliomas. Mesothelioma in situ is now recognized as either a single layer of bland cuboidal mesothelial cells that have lost BAP1, and sometimes MTAP, on immunohistochemical staining, or a process that is morphologically identical to a well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor that has lost BAP1/MTAP. Mesothelioma in situ probably always progresses to invasive mesothelioma, but this process is often quite slow.

Lung imaging patterns in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease impact prognosis and immunosuppression response.

OBJECTIVES: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) in connective tissue diseases (CTD) have highly variable morphology. We aimed to identify imaging features and their impact on ILD progression, mortality and immunosuppression response. METHODS: Patients with CTD-ILD had high-resolution chest computed tomography (HRCT) reviewed by expert radiologists blinded to clinical data for overall imaging pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia [UIP]; non-specific interstitial pneumonia [NSIP]; organizing pneumonia [OP]; fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis [fHP]; and other). Transplant-free survival and change in percent-predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) were compared using Cox and linear mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and baseline FVC. FVC decline after immunosuppression was compared with pre-treatment. RESULTS: Of 645 CTD-ILD patients, the frequent CTDs were systemic sclerosis (n = 215), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 127), and inflammatory myopathies (n = 100). NSIP was the most common pattern (54%), followed by UIP (20%), fHP (9%), and OP (5%). Compared with UIP, FVC decline was slower for NSIP (1.1%/year, 95%CI 0.2, 1.9) and OP (3.5%/year, 95%CI 2.0, 4.9), and mortality was lower for NSIP (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.45, 0.93) and OP (HR 0.18, 95%CI 0.05, 0.57), but higher in fHP (HR 1.58, 95%CI 1.01, 2.40). The extent of fibrosis also predicted FVC decline and mortality. After immunosuppression, FVC decline was slower compared with pre-treatment in NSIP (by 2.1%/year, 95%CI 1.4, 2.8), with no change for UIP or fHP. CONCLUSION: Multiple radiologic patterns are possible in CTD-ILD, including a fHP pattern. NSIP and OP were associated with better outcomes and response to immunosuppression, while fHP had worse survival compared with UIP.

Pulmonary Pathology Society Survey on Practice Approaches in the Histologic Diagnosis of Fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease: Consensus and Opportunities.

CONTEXT.­: The pathologic diagnosis of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) remains a challenging area, and application of histologic UIP guidelines has proved difficult. OBJECTIVE.­: To understand current practice approaches by pulmonary pathologists for the histologic diagnosis of UIP and other fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). DESIGN.­: The Pulmonary Pathology Society (PPS) ILD Working Group developed and sent a 5-part survey on fibrotic ILD electronically to the PPS membership. RESULTS.­: One hundred sixty-one completed surveys were analyzed. Of the respondents, 89% reported using published histologic features in clinical guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in their pathologic diagnosis; however, there was variability in reporting terminology, quantity and quality of histologic features, and the use of guideline categorization. Respondents were very likely to have access to pulmonary pathology colleagues (79%), pulmonologists (98%), and radiologists (94%) to discuss cases. Half of respondents reported they may alter their pathologic diagnosis based on additional clinical and radiologic history if it is pertinent. Airway-centered fibrosis, granulomas, and types of inflammatory infiltrates were considered important, but there was poor agreement on how these features are defined. CONCLUSIONS.­: There is significant consensus among the PPS membership on the importance of histologic guidelines/features of UIP. There are unmet needs for (1) consensus and standardization of diagnostic terminology and incorporation of recommended histopathologic categories from the clinical IPF guidelines into pathology reports, (2) agreement on how to incorporate into the report relevant clinical and radiographic information, and (3) defining the quantity and quality of features needed to suggest alternative diagnoses.

New developments in mesothelial pathology.

This review article examines some new and some problem areas in mesothelial pathology, four of which are discussed, as follows. (1) The concept of mesothelioma in situ: this lesion is defined as a single layer of bland mesothelial cells without evidence of invasion, but that have lost BAP1 and/or MTAP by immunohistochemistry. Benign reactions can exactly mimic mesothelioma in situ, but a hint to the correct diagnosis is a story of recurrent pleural effusions/ascites of unknown aetiology without radiological or direct visual evidence of tumour. (2) The nature of well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumour (WDPMT): WDPMT has a long history of arguments regarding its behaviour, and this uncertainty can now be seen to arise, in part, from the observation that some forms of mesothelioma in situ microscopically look exactly like WDPMT. Hence, it is recommended to always run at least a BAP1 stain on any lesion that looks like WDPMT. Both flat and WDPMT-like mesothelioma in situ are strongly associated with eventual development of invasive mesothelioma, but this process is relatively slow. (3) New immunostains for separating mesothelioma from other tumours: here, it is proposed that in most cases, and particularly when the differential is epithelioid mesothelioma versus non-small cell lung cancer, one can make this separation with extremely high sensitivity and specificity using just two stains: HEG1 and claudin-4. (4) Markers for separating benign from malignant mesothelial proliferations: this topic is briefly reviewed, with an indication of which markers are generally accepted and the best utilisation and possible limitations of each marker.

Uroplakin-IIIb as a novel immunohistochemical marker for mesothelioma.

Distinguishing mesothelioma from non-small cell lung carcinoma often requires a battery of immunohistochemical stains, as many traditional markers used in mesothelioma lack sufficient specificity to allow them to be used alone. A recent large-scale TMA screen identified uroplakin-IIIb (UpIIIb; clone MSVA-736M) as a potentially specific marker for mesothelioma. We examined the performance of this antibody using tissue microarrays containing a panel of 48 epithelioid mesotheliomas, 26 sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, and 144 non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). Here we show that UpIIIb has good sensitivity (37/47 evaluable cases positive, 79%) and excellent specificity for distinguishing epithelioid mesothelioma from NSCLC (0/140 evaluable cases positive). UPIIIb sensitivity for epithelioid mesotheliomas was only slightly inferior to the established highly specific mesothelioma marker HEG1 (41/46 evaluable cases positive on the same TMA, 89%). However, UpIIIb did not stain any sarcomatoid mesotheliomas (0/24 evaluable cases positive). We also found that UpIIIb stained a proportion of high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, a perennial diagnostic confounder in the context of mesotheliomas. Taken together, our data suggest that UpIIIb can be used as a highly specific and sensitive mesothelial marker when the diagnostic question is epithelioid mesothelioma versus NSCLC; in particular, UpIIIb staining will pick up some number of epithelioid mesotheliomas that are HEG1 negative. Since UpIIIb is known to stain some proportion of urothelial carcinomas as well as gynecologic and a few pancreatic tumors, it should be used with caution in the peritoneal cavity or when the differential diagnosis includes carcinomas from these locations.

Integration and Application of Radiologic Patterns From Clinical Practice Guidelines on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Fibrotic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines separately describe radiologic patterns of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fHP), without direction on whether or how to apply these approaches concurrently within a single patient. RESEARCH QUESTION: How can we integrate guideline-defined radiologic patterns to diagnose interstitial lung disease (ILD) and what are the pitfalls associated with described patterns that require reassessment in future guidelines? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients from the Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis underwent detailed reevaluation in standardized multidisciplinary discussion. CT scan features were quantified by chest radiologists masked to clinical data, and guideline-defined patterns were assigned. Clinical data then were provided to the radiologist and an ILD clinician, who jointly determined the leading diagnosis. RESULTS: Clinical-radiologic diagnosis in 1,593 patients was idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 26%, fHP in 12%, connective tissue disease-associated ILD (CTD-ILD) in 34%, idiopathic pneumonia with autoimmune features in 12%, and unclassifiable ILD in 10%. Typical and probable UIP patterns corresponded to a diagnosis of IPF in 66% and 57% of patients, respectively. Typical fHP pattern corresponded to an fHP clinical diagnosis in 65% of patients, whereas compatible fHP was nonspecific and associated with CTD-ILD or IPAF in 48% of patients. No pattern ruled out CTD-ILD. Gas trapping affecting > 5% of lung parenchyma on expiratory imaging was an important feature broadly separating compatible and typical fHP from other patterns (sensitivity, 0.77; specificity, 0.91). INTERPRETATION: An integrated approach to guideline-defined UIP and fHP patterns is feasible and supports > 5% gas trapping as an important branch point. Typical or probable UIP and typical fHP patterns have moderate predictive values for a corresponding diagnosis of IPF and fHP, although occasionally confounded by CTD-ILD; compatible fHP is nonspecific.

Occupational interstitial lung diseases.

Millions of workers are exposed to substances known to cause occupational interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), particularly in developing countries. However, the burden of the disease is likely to be underestimated due to under-recognition, under-reporting or both. The diagnosis of occupational ILD requires a high level of suspicion and a thorough occupational history, as occupational and non-occupational ILDs may be clinically, functionally and radiologically indistinguishable, leading to delayed diagnosis and inappropriate management. A potential occupational aetiology should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of ILD, as removal from the workplace exposure, with or without treatment, is a key therapeutic intervention and may lead to significant improvement. In this article, we provide an overview of the 'traditional' inorganic dust-related ILDs but also address idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and the immunologically mediated chronic beryllium disease, sarcoidosis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis, with emphasis on the importance of surveillance and prevention for reducing the burden of these conditions. To this end, health-care professionals should be specifically trained about the importance of occupational exposures as a potential cause of ILD.

Pathologic Criteria for the Diagnosis of Usual Interstitial Pneumonia vs Fibrotic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis in Transbronchial Cryobiopsies.

Transbronchial cryobiopsy (TBCB) is increasingly used for the diagnosis of fibrosing interstitial pneumonias, but there are few detailed descriptions of the pathologic findings in such cases. It has been proposed that a combination of patchy fibrosis and fibroblast foci with an absence of alternative features is diagnostic of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP; ie, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis [IPF]) in TBCB. In this study, we reviewed 121 TBCB in which a diagnosis of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (FHP; n = 83) or IPF (n = 38) was made by multidisciplinary discussion and evaluated a range of pathologic features. Patchy fibrosis was found in 65 of 83 (78%) biopsies from FHP and 32of 38 (84%) biopsies from UIP/IPF cases. Fibroblast foci were present in 47 of 83 (57%) FHP and 27 of 38 (71%) UIP/IPF cases. Fibroblast foci/patchy fibrosis combined did not favor either diagnosis. Architectural distortion was seen in 54 of 83 (65%) FHP and 32 of 38 (84%) UIP/IPF cases (odds ratio [OR] for FHP, 0.35; P = .036) and honeycombing in 18 of 83 (22%) and 17 of 38 (45%), respectively (OR, 0.37; P = .014). Airspace giant cells/granulomas were present in 13 of 83 (20%) FHP and 1 of 38 (2.6%) UIP/IPF cases (OR for FHP, 6.87; P = .068), and interstitial giant cells/granulomas in 20 of 83 (24%) FHP and 0 of 38 (0%) UIP/IPF (OR, 6.7 x 106; P = .000). We conclude that patchy fibrosis plus fibroblast foci can be found in TBCB from both FHP and UIP/IPF. The complete absence of architectural distortion/honeycombing favors a diagnosis of FHP, as does the presence of airspace or interstitial giant cells/granulomas, but these measures are insensitive, and many cases of FHP cannot be separated from UIP/IPF on TBCB.

Mesothelioma In Situ Mimicking Well-differentiated Papillary Mesothelial Tumor.

We have previously hypothesized that well-differentiated papillary mesothelial tumor (WDPMT) consists of 2 morphologically identical lesions, one of which is true WDPMT, while the other is a form of mesothelioma in situ. Here, we report 8 examples of the latter phenomenon, 3 with pleural disease (2 men/1 woman, ages 66 to 78 y); and 5 with peritoneal disease (all women, ages 31 to 81 y). At presentation the pleural cases all had effusions but no evidence of pleural tumor on imaging. Four of the 5 peritoneal cases had ascites as the initial finding and all 4 had nodular lesions that by imaging and/or direct inspection were thought to represent a diffuse peritoneal malignancy. The fifth peritoneal case presented with an umbilical mass. Microscopically, the pleural and peritoneal lesions looked like diffuse WDPMT, but all had lost BAP1. Occasional microscopic foci of superficial invasion were present in 3/3 pleural cases, while single nodules of invasive mesothelioma and/or occasional foci of superficial microscopic invasion were found in all of the peritoneal cases. The pleural tumor patients developed what clinically appeared to be invasive mesothelioma at 45, 69, and 94 months. Four/five peritoneal tumor patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Three with follow-up data are alive without recurrence at 6, 24, and 36 months; 1 patient refused treatment but is alive at 24 months. We conclude that mesothelioma in situ morphologically mimicking WDPMT is strongly associated with the synchronous or metachronous development of invasive mesothelioma, but that these lesions appear to progress very slowly.

Lymphoid Interstitial Pneumonia (LIP) Revisited: A Critical Reappraisal of the Histologic Spectrum of "Radiologic" and "Pathologic" LIP in the Context of Diffuse Benign Lymphoid Proliferations of the Lung.

The use of lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (LIP) as a diagnostic term has changed considerably since its introduction. Utilizing a multi-institutional collection of 201 cases from the last 20 years that demonstrate features associated with the LIP rubric, we compared cases meeting strict histologic criteria of LIP per American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) consensus ("pathologic LIP"; n=62) with cystic cases fulfilling radiologic ATS/ERS criteria ("radiologic LIP"; n=33) and with other diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. "Pathologic LIP" was associated with immune dysregulation including autoimmune disorders and immune deficiency, whereas "radiologic LIP" was only seen with autoimmune disorders. No case of idiopathic LIP was found. On histology, "pathologic LIP" represented a subgroup of 70% (62/88) of cases with the distinctive pattern of diffuse expansile lymphoid infiltrates. In contrast, "radiologic LIP" demonstrated a broad spectrum of inflammatory patterns, airway-centered inflammation being most common (52%; 17/33). Only 5 cases with radiologic cysts also met consensus ATS/ERS criteria for "pathologic LIP." Overall, broad overlap was observed with the remaining study cases that failed to meet consensus criteria for "radiologic LIP" and/or "pathologic LIP." These data raise concerns about the practical use of the term LIP as currently defined. What radiologists and pathologist encounter as LIP differs remarkably, but neither "radiologic LIP" nor "pathologic LIP" present with sufficiently distinct findings to delineate such cases from other patterns of diffuse benign lymphoid proliferations. As a result of this study, we believe LIP should be abandoned as a pathologic and radiologic diagnosis.

A Combination of MTAP and p16 Immunohistochemistry Can Substitute for CDKN2A Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization in Diagnosis and Prognosis of Pleural Mesotheliomas.

CONTEXT.­: Homozygous deletion (HD) of CDKN2A is one of the most frequent genetic abnormalities in pleural mesotheliomas. HD of CDKN2A by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is a reliable marker of malignancy in mesothelial proliferations; however, evaluation of CDKN2A deletion requires FISH. The 9p21 locus includes both CDKN2A and MTAP (methylthioadenosine phosphorylase); the latter is frequently codeleted with CDKN2A. OBJECTIVE.­: To examine the question of whether immunohistochemistry for MTAP and p16, the protein product of CDKN2A, can serve as a surrogate for CDKN2A HD by FISH. DESIGN.­: A random selection of 125 pleural mesothelioma cases was divided into 3 groups for evaluation of p16 and MTAP expression compared with FISH for CDKN2A deletion: 53 with HD, 39 with heterozygous deletion, and 33 without deletion. RESULTS.­: By itself, loss of p16 nuclear expression (<1% staining) showed a high sensitivity (96%) but low specificity (43%) for CDKN2A HD by FISH. MTAP cytoplasmic expression loss (≤30% staining) showed a 97% specificity and 69% sensitivity. The combination of p16 nuclear (<1% staining) and MTAP cytoplasmic (≤30% staining) loss demonstrated both high specificity (96%) and high sensitivity (86%). Patients with retained p16 expression (≥1%) had the best prognosis, whereas a p16 (<1%)/MTAP loss combination was associated with a dismal prognosis. CONCLUSIONS.­: MTAP immunohistochemical staining is a valid surrogate marker for CDKN2A HD by FISH; however, to obtain the same accuracy as the FISH assay, a combination of nuclear p16 and cytoplasmic MTAP staining is recommended. These findings correlate with prognosis.

Hypothesis: HEG1 and claudin-4 staining will allow a diagnosis of epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma versus non-small-cell lung carcinoma with only two stains in most cases.

Separation of mesothelioma from metastatic carcinoma requires immunohistochemical support, with small batteries of stains recommended as a starting-point, but these numbers commonly expand to 10, 12 or more stains, a process that is not only expensive but frequently generates anomalous or confounding results, leading to even more stains. Here we review data on HEG1 clone SKM9-2, a new (now commercially available) mesothelioma marker and claudin-4, a broad-spectrum carcinoma marker, to ask whether these two stains are sufficient, by themselves, to separate mesotheliomas from non-small-cell lung (NSCLC) as well as other carcinomas. Data for HEG1, derived from four laboratories, showed membrane staining in 393 of 434 (91%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas and one of 360 (0.3%) NSCLC (sensitivity 91%, specificity 99.7%). Reports from seven laboratories evaluating claudin-4 in NSCLC showed positivity in 469 of 502 (93%) carcinomas and weak positivity in five of 463 (1.0%) epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas (sensitivity 93%, specificity 98.9%). Comparable results were found with carcinomas from other sites, except for serous and thyroid carcinomas, some of which react with HEG1 but are also positive for claudin-4. For sarcomatoid mesotheliomas, HEG1 sensitivity is modest and staining sometimes difficult to interpret. We hypothesise that the combination of HEG1 and claudin-4 immunostaining will potentially allow the separation of epithelioid/biphasic mesotheliomas from NSCLC carcinomas with high accuracy using only two immunostains in most cases. This combination will probably also work for carcinomas from most other sites, but more reports on HEG1 SKM9-2 staining of carcinomas other than NSCLC are needed. This approach would greatly simplify the diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Bilateral Pleural Mesothelioma In Situ and Peritoneal Mesothelioma In Situ Associated With BAP1 Germline Mutation: A Case Report.

Mesothelioma in situ is a recently described precursor to invasive mesothelioma. Thus far, all cases in the literature have involved one pleural cavity or the peritoneal cavity. We describe a patient with biopsy-proven mesothelioma in situ involving both pleural cavities and the peritoneal cavity. Genetic analysis results revealed that the patient had a BAP1 germline mutation. This is the first report of mesothelioma in situ involving multiple body cavities and raises a question of whether such patients will all have BAP1 germline mutations.

Management of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent guidelines have updated the classification of hypersensitivity pneumonitis, stratifying by the presence or absence of fibrosis as either fibrotic or nonfibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis represents up to 10% of interstitial lung disease in large cohort studies, and is occasionally even more common in some regions; however, there are many unknown aspects to the diagnosis and management. The goal of this review article is to summarize the management of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. RECENT FINDINGS: Historically, the only treatment options for patients with hypersensitivity pneumonitis were antigen avoidance and corticosteroids, although other immunosuppressive therapies are increasingly endorsed by experts in the field. There is accumulating evidence that antifibrotic medications can be useful as a second-line therapy in some patients with fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis who have progression despite immunosuppression. There remains no direct comparison of immunosuppressive vs. antifibrotic medication for the management of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, but some clinical, radiological and pathological features may suggest greater likelihood of benefit from one option or the other. SUMMARY: We anticipate that future treatment of fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis will consider a variety of patient features to suggest the most prominent underlying biology that will then be used to guide initial pharmacotherapy; however, additional data are still needed.

Integration and Application of Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Fibrotic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have addressed the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (fHP). These disease-specific guidelines were developed independently, without clear direction on how to apply their respective recommendations concurrently within a single patient, where discrimination between these two fibrotic interstitial lung diseases represents a frequent diagnostic challenge. The objective of this review, created by an international group of experts, was to suggest a pragmatic approach on how to apply existing guidelines to distinguish IPF and fHP. Key clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features described in previous guidelines are integrated in a set of diagnostic algorithms, which then are placed in the broader context of multidisciplinary discussion to guide the generation of a consensus diagnosis. Although these algorithms necessarily reflect some uncertainty wherever strong evidence is lacking, they provide insight into the current approach favored by experts in the field based on currently available knowledge. The authors further identify priorities for future research to clarify ongoing uncertainties in the diagnosis of fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.