PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 20, 2026American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine0 citations

C71-16 Diagnostic Accuracy of Genomic Classifier in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Published up to 2025

View Full Paper
ASA SinghAJA JenaRPR Phadke

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of genomic classifiers in interstitial lung disease (ILD) using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines.
  • Performed comprehensive searches of several medical databases through October 2025 using predefined terms.
  • Extracted true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative data from eligible studies to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC.
  • Pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 60-76%; P<0.001) and specificity was 77% (95% CI, 70-85%; P<0.001).
  • Estimated AUROC was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.81), indicating good diagnostic performance.
  • Incorporation of genomic classifier data increased diagnostic confidence in ILD subtyping by 30-50% in two studies.

Abstract

Abstract Rationale The diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) requires a multidisciplinary discussion (MDD), in which high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and histopathology play key roles. Genomic classifiers have recently been introduced for clinical use, in which lung tissue obtained via transbronchial forceps biopsy undergoes whole-transcriptome RNA sequencing followed by gene expression analysis. These molecular tools are particularly valuable in establishing a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in patients without a definite usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern on imaging. Although genomic classifiers are increasingly utilized in clinical practice, data on their diagnostic performance continue to evolve, warranting an updated analysis of the current evidence. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were performed through October 2025 using predefined terms including “genomic classifier,” “Envisia,” “UIP,” and “interstitial lung disease.” Eligible studies were which enrolled adult patients with ILD of uncertain etiology in whom genomic classifiers were compared with histopathologic or MDD based reference standards. True positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative data were extracted to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) using a random-effects bivariate model. Results Six studies comprising 347 patients met inclusion criteria, with sample sizes ranging from 24 to 98 participants. Across studies, sensitivity ranged from 59% to 85% and specificity from 75% to 100%. The pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 60-76%; P 0.001) and specificity 77% (95% CI, 70-85%; P 0.001), with an estimated AUROC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.81) indicating discriminative performance. In two studies evaluating clinical impact, incorporation of genomic classifier data into MDD increased diagnostic confidence in ILD subtyping by 30-50%. No major adverse events related to transbronchial tissue acquisition were reported. Conclusions Genomic classifiers represent a promising, less invasive adjunct for identifying UIP patterns in ILD, demonstrating good overall diagnostic accuracy. Incorporating classifier results within MDD frameworks enhances diagnostic confidence and may reduce the need for surgical lung biopsy in appropriately selected patients. However, small study sizes, potential funding bias and limited accessibility highlight the need for larger, independently conducted prospective studies to further define their role in future IPF diagnostic algorithms. This abstract is funded by: None

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0d5122f03e14405aa9d6ebhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ajrccm/aamag162.2784
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper