An initial exploration for comprehensive assessment of IgG4-related lung disease: analyses on the cases enrolled from a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

The existence of two diagnostic systems, the Boston and Japan criteria, for immunoglobulin G4-related disease (IgG4-RD) confuse the medical practice. We aimed to develop a comprehensive assessment based on the weight of each diagnostic item in the existing criteria to improve the diagnostic efficiency of Boston criteria.

METHODS

We assessed the patients enrolled by a systematic review of the literatures using the Boston criteria, Japan criteria and a tentative comprehensive assessment respectively, and evaluated the efficiency of each system and their consistency.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that the distinction in pathological diagnostic items was similar for the Boston criteria (IgG4+/IgG+ ratio, P<0.01; the number of pathological features and IgG4+ count, P<0.001) and comprehensive assessment (IgG4+/IgG+ ratio and the number of pathological features, P<0.001; IgG4+ count, P<0.05). For the Japan criteria, a good distinction in the number of pathological features was demonstrated (P<0.05) but the difference in the IgG4+/IgG+ ratio and IgG4+ count was not significant. There was relatively poor consistency between the Boston and Japan criteria (Kappa =0.482, P<0.001), while there was good agreement (Kappa =0.811, P<0.001), but a significant difference (P=0.011, McNemar matching test), between the Boston criteria and comprehensive assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

The current two diagnostic systems have poor consistency. Comprehensive assessment has good agreement with the Boston criteria, but can identify those cases in Boston Category 3 who could still be diagnosed as IgG4-related lung disease. Considering the weight of diagnostic items, the scoring system is a tentative exploration that should be improved with further experience in diagnosing IgG4-related lung disease.