今泉 和良

INTRODUCTION: Increasing numbers of cases of mild asymptomatic pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (PAP) are being reported with the recent increase in chest computed tomography (CT). Bronchoscopic diagnosis of mild PAP is challenging because of the patchy distribution of lesions, which makes it difficult to obtain sufficient biopsy samples. Additionally, the pathological findings of mild PAP, particularly those that differ from severe PAP, have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the pathological findings of mild PAP and the usefulness of optical biopsy using probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE). METHODS: We performed bronchoscopic optical biopsy using pCLE and tissue biopsy in five consecutive patients with PAP (three with mild PAP and two with severe PAP). We compared the pCLE images of mild PAP with those of severe PAP by integrating clinical findings, tissue pathology, and chest computed tomography images. RESULTS: pCLE images of PAP showed giant cells with strong fluorescence, amorphous substances, and thin alveolar walls. Images of affected lesions in mild PAP were equivalent to those obtained in arbitrary lung lesions in severe cases. All three patients with mild PAP spontaneously improved or remained stable after ≥3 years of follow-up. Serum autoantibodies to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor were detected in all five cases. CONCLUSION: Optical biopsy using pCLE can yield specific diagnostic findings, even in patients with mild PAP. pCLE images of affected areas in mild and severe PAP showed similar findings, indicating that the dysfunction level of pathogenic alveolar macrophages in affected areas is similar between both disease intensities.

Despite innovative advances in molecular targeted therapy, treatment strategies using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have not progressed significantly. Accumulating evidence suggests that ICI chemotherapy is inadequate in this population. Biomarkers of ICI therapy, such as programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), are not biomarkers in patients with EGFR mutations, and the specificity of the tumor microenvironment has been suggested as the reason for this. Combination therapy with PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors is a concern because of its severe toxicity and limited efficacy. However, early-stage NSCLC may differ from advanced-stage NSCLC. In this review, we comprehensively review the current evidence and summarize the potential of ICI therapy in patients with EGFR mutations after acquiring resistance to treatment with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with no T790M mutation or whose disease has progressed on osimertinib.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed non-pharmacological therapy for refractory bronchial asthma. Although increasing evidence has suggested that BT is effective for various phenotypes of severe asthma, its safety and efficacy in patients with severe irreversible impaired lung function are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of BT in patients with refractory asthma, including patients with a severely impaired forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). DESIGN: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 15 patients with refractory asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma step 4 or 5), including patients with severely impaired airflow limitation (% predicted pre-bronchodilator FEV1 <60%), who had undergone BT between June 2016 and January 2022. We analyzed the efficacy (change in asthma symptoms, exacerbation rate, pulmonary function, asthma medication, and serum inflammatory chemokine/cytokines before and after BT) and complications in all patients. We compared these data between patients with severe obstructive lung dysfunction [group 1(G1)] and patients with FEV1 ⩾ 60% [group 2 (G2)]. RESULTS: Six patients were in G1 and nine were in G2. Clinical characteristics, T2 inflammation, and concurrent treatment were equivalent in both groups. BT significantly improved asthma-related symptoms (measured using the Asthma Control Test and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores) in both groups. FEV1 was significantly improved in G1 but not in G2. Four patients in G2, but none in G1, experienced asthma exacerbation requiring additional systemic corticosteroids (including two requiring prolonged hospitalization) after BT. Long-term responders (patients who reduced systemic or inhaled corticosteroid without newly adding biologics in a follow-up > 2 years) of BT were identified in G1 and G2 (n = 2, 33.3% and n = 4, 44.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: BT in patients with refractory asthma and severe airflow limitation is equally safe and efficacious as that in patients with moderate airflow limitation.