Classification of diffuse lung diseases: why and how

Abstract

The understanding of complex lung diseases, notably the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias and small airways diseases, owes as much to repeated attempts over the years to classify them as to any single conceptual breakthrough. One of the many benefits of a successful classification scheme is that it allows workers, within and between disciplines, to be clear that they are discussing the same disease. This may be of particular importance in the recruitment of individuals for a clinical trial that requires a standardized and homogeneous study population. Different specialties require fundamentally different things from a classification: for epidemiologic studies, a classification that requires categorization of individuals according to histopathologic pattern is not usually practicable. Conversely, a scheme that simply divides diffuse parenchymal disease into inflammatory and noninflammatory categories is unlikely to further the understanding about the pathogenesis of disease. Thus, for some disease groupings, for example, pulmonary vasculopathies, there may be several appropriate classifications, each with its merits and demerits. There has been an interesting shift in the past few years, from the accepted primacy of histopathology as the sole basis on which the classification of parenchymal lung disease has rested, to new ways of considering how these entities relate to each other. Some inventive thinking has resulted in new classifications that undoubtedly benefit patients and clinicians in their endeavor to improve management and outcome. The challenge of understanding the logic behind current classifications and their shortcomings are explored in various examples of lung diseases.