Fetal lung lesions: a new classification of fetal lung dysplasia
N. Sebire
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1743
2004-10-01
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Abstract:In a recent issue of the Journal, Achiron et al. presented an editorial and paper regarding a potential new classification of fetal lung lesions on the basis of pathogenesis and prenatal ultrasound findings, including Doppler examination1,2. The concept of reclassifying clinicopathological entities on the basis of combined prenatal and pathological findings is forward thinking and there has indeed been much discussion in the pathological literature in recent years regarding the potential overlapping features of several congenital pulmonary entities3,4. However, there are several additional points which may be pertinent to the discussion of this issue. First, Stocker, the author of much of the classification and pathological work on congenital lung anomalies, has recently formally proposed that the former designation of congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation (CCAM) be amended to the more accurate designation of congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM)5, in view of the expanded classification system in which not all types are cystic and the majority of the types are indeed not adenomatoid on pathological examination! Second, although it has long been felt that the intralobar variant of bronchopulmonary sequestration is probably an acquired phenomenon, there have been recent publications apparently describing the occurrence of this lesion in-utero/at birth, further raising the possibility, as stated by the authors, that the pathogenesis and histopathological spectrum of bronchopulmonary sequestration and CPAM may overlap6,7. Third, although the concept of reclassifying such lesions on the basis of clinical, pathological and Doppler findings is appealing, the introduction in this context of the term ‘fetal lung dysplasia’ is likely to lead to much more confusion. Most prenatally diagnosed lung lesions are better classified as malformations, being morphological defects of an organ or region of the body resulting in an intrinsically abnormal developmental process8. In diagnostic pathology, the term dysplasia in adult practice is often used to denote neoplastic or preneoplastic development, but in the context of congenital anomalies it usually refers to dyshistiogenesis with abnormal organization of the tissue and its morphological results, usually therefore representing a more diffuse process8. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, there are already numerous congenital conditions affecting the lungs which are classified as ‘lung dysplasias’. These are of great importance in high-risk neonatal practice since they all often present with early onset of respiratory distress, which is refractory to standard treatment. However, since they are present, but almost never diagnosed, prenatally, the authors of the recent reports1,2 have not referred to them. This group of ‘lung dysplasias’ are indeed thought to represent diffuse abnormal development of the lungs in-utero, but without the presence of a mass lesion. They include alveolar capillary dysplasia, with or without misalignment of the pulmonary vessels9,10, rhabdomyomatous dysplasia of the newborn lung11 and several other conditions often considered under this umbrella classification, such as pulmonary alveolar proteinosis12, including surfactant protein deficiencies, and so-called early onset chronic pneumonitis of infancy13. Therefore, the introduction of several further categories of ‘fetal lung dysplasia’ to encompass essentially all developmental pulmonary anomalies would appear to have little benefit. According to the data presented in the manuscript describing clinical outcome based on the new classification system, it is difficult to see how the new terminology provides benefit; those cases classified as ‘type 1’ would have been previously accurately termed pulmonary agenesis, ‘type 2’ cases would appear to have no clinical relevance, ‘type 3’ would predominantly fulfill existing criteria for intraor extralobar sequestration and those classified as ‘type 4’ presumably fulfill the criteria for CPAM, although pathological details are not available in the manuscript. The placing of all other miscellaneous conditions into ‘group 5’ would also appear to be counterproductive, since most of these conditions will by definition have another specific diagnosis. The authors are applauded for attempting to systematically approach this complex topic and the conclusion that examination of the vascularity of prenatally diagnosed lung lesions, in particular the pattern of venous drainage, may be of importance in predicting clinical behavior is not at all disputed. However, it could be argued that, far from simplifying ‘the complex and confusing terminology currently in use for lung anomalies’, the addition of a new classification, particularly one also introducing the word ‘dysplasia’ into an arena in which many respiratory neonatologists already use this term for a completely different set of conditions, may simply cause additional confusion.