Acute Respiratory Illness in Immunocompromised Patients

Variant: 1 Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography chest	Usually Appropriate	☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Normal, equivocal, or nonspecific chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Image-guided transthoracic needle biopsy	May Be Appropriate	Varies
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 4 Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Image-guided transthoracic needle biopsy	May Be Appropriate	Varies
MRI chest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢

Panel Members

Patrick M. Colletti, MD^a; Christopher Lee, MD^b; Jonathan H. Chung, MD^c; Jeanne B. Ackman, MD^d; Mark F. Berry, MD^e; Brett W. Carter, MD^f; Patricia M. de Groot, MD^g; Stephen B. Hobbs, MD^h; Geoffrey B. Johnson, MD, PhDⁱ; Fabien Maldonado, MD^j; Barbara L. McComb, MD^k; Betty C. Tong, MD^l; Christopher M. Walker, MD^m; Jeffrey P. Kanne, MDⁿ.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.

Variant 1: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.
A. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.
B. CT Chest

Variant 1: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.
C. MRI Chest

Variant 1: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Cough, dyspnea, chest pain, or fever. Initial Imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Normal, equivocal, or nonspecific chest radiograph. Next imaging study.

Variant 2: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Normal, equivocal, or nonspecific chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
A. CT Chest

Variant 2: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Normal, equivocal, or nonspecific chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
B. MRI Chest

Variant 2: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Normal, equivocal, or nonspecific chest radiograph. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.
A. CT Chest

Variant 3: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.
B. MRI Chest

Variant 3: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, multiple, diffuse, or confluent opacities. Next imaging study.
D. Image-Guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy

Variant 4: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.
A. CT Chest

Variant 4: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.
B. MRI Chest

Variant 4: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.
C. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 4: Acute respiratory illness in immunocompromised patients. Abnormal chest radiograph, noninfectious disease suspected. Next imaging study.
D. Image-Guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Cereser L, Zuiani C, Graziani G, et al. Impact of clinical data on chest radiography sensitivity in detecting pulmonary abnormalities in immunocompromised patients with suspected pneumonia. Radiol Med. 2010;115(2):205-214.
2.	Safadi AR, Soubani AO. Diagnostic approach of pulmonary disease in the HIV negative immunocompromised host. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20(3):268-279.
3.	Reynolds JH, Banerjee AK. Imaging pneumonia in immunocompetent and immunocompromised individuals. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2012;18(3):194-201.
4.	Franquet T. High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of lung infections in non-AIDS immunocompromised patients. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(3):707-718.
5.	Kisembo HN, Boon SD, Davis JL, et al. Chest radiographic findings of pulmonary tuberculosis in severely immunocompromised patients with the human immunodeficiency virus. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1014):e130-139.
6.	Heussel CP, Kauczor HU, Heussel G, Fischer B, Mildenberger P, Thelen M. Early detection of pneumonia in febrile neutropenic patients: use of thin-section CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(5):1347-1353.
7.	Aderaye G, Bruchfeld J, Assefa G, et al. The relationship between disease pattern and disease burden by chest radiography, M. tuberculosis Load, and HIV status in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Addis Ababa. Infection. 2004;32(6):333-338.
8.	Kanne JP, Yandow DR, Meyer CA. Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia: high-resolution CT findings in patients with and without HIV infection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):W555-561.
9.	Ekinci A, Yucel Ucarkus T, Okur A, Ozturk M, Dogan S. MRI of pneumonia in immunocompromised patients: comparison with CT. Diagn Interv Radiol. 23(1):22-28, 2017 Jan-Feb.
10.	Sartori A, Souza A, Zanon M, et al. Performance of magnetic resonance imaging in pulmonary fungal disease compared to high-resolution computed tomography. Mycoses. 60(4):266-272, 2017 Apr.
11.	Nagel SN, Wyschkon S, Schwartz S, Hamm B, Elgeti T. Can magnetic resonance imaging be an alternative to computed tomography in immunocompromised patients with suspected fungal infections? Feasibility of a speed optimized examination protocol at 3 Tesla. Eur J Radiol. 85(4):857-63, 2016 Apr.
12.	Rieger C, Herzog P, Eibel R, Fiegl M, Ostermann H. Pulmonary MRI--a new approach for the evaluation of febrile neutropenic patients with malignancies. Support Care Cancer. 16(6):599-606, 2008 Jun.
13.	Wang SY, Chen G, Luo DL, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT findings of pulmonary cryptococcosis. Eur J Radiol. 89:140-148, 2017 Apr.
14.	Ketai L, Jordan K, Marom EM. Imaging infection. Clin Chest Med. 2008;29(1):77-105, vi.
15.	Demirkazik FB, Akin A, Uzun O, Akpinar MG, Ariyurek MO. CT findings in immunocompromised patients with pulmonary infections. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008;14(2):75-82.
16.	Hardak E, Brook O, Yigla M. Radiological features of Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia in immunocompromised patients with and without AIDS. Lung. 2010;188(2):159-163.
17.	Park YS, Seo JB, Lee YK, et al. Radiological and clinical findings of pulmonary aspergillosis following solid organ transplant. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(6):673-680.
18.	Lim C, Seo JB, Park SY, et al. Analysis of initial and follow-up CT findings in patients with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis after solid organ transplantation. Clin Radiol. 67(12):1179-86, 2012 Dec.
19.	Brook O, Guralnik L, Hardak E, et al. Radiological findings of early invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in immune-compromised patients. Hematol Oncol. 2009;27(2):102-106.
20.	Qin J, Xu J, Dong Y, et al. High-resolution CT findings of pulmonary infections after orthotopic liver transplantation in 453 patients. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1019):e959-965.
21.	Nam BD, Kim TJ, Lee KS, Kim TS, Han J, Chung MJ. Pulmonary mucormycosis: serial morphologic changes on computed tomography correlate with clinical and pathologic findings. Eur Radiol. 28(2):788-795, 2018 Feb.
22.	Franquet T, Gimenez A, Hidalgo A. Imaging of opportunistic fungal infections in immunocompromised patient. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51(2):130-138.
23.	Althoff Souza C, Muller NL, Marchiori E, Escuissato DL, Franquet T. Pulmonary invasive aspergillosis and candidiasis in immunocompromised patients: a comparative study of the high-resolution CT findings. J Thorac Imaging. 2006;21(3):184-189.
24.	Franquet T, Lee KS, Muller NL. Thin-section CT findings in 32 immunocompromised patients with cytomegalovirus pneumonia who do not have AIDS. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(4):1059-1063.
25.	Vogel MN, Brodoefel H, Hierl T, et al. Differences and similarities of cytomegalovirus and pneumocystis pneumonia in HIV-negative immunocompromised patients thin section CT morphology in the early phase of the disease. Br J Radiol. 2007;80(955):516-523.
26.	Godet C, Le Goff J, Beby-Defaux A, et al. Human metapneumovirus pneumonia in patients with hematological malignancies. J Clin Virol. 61(4):593-6, 2014 Dec.
27.	Egli A, Bucher C, Dumoulin A, et al. Human metapneumovirus infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Infection. 2012;40(6):677-684.
28.	Syha R, Beck R, Hetzel J, et al. Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) associated pulmonary infections in immunocompromised adults--initial CT findings, disease course and comparison to respiratory-syncytial-virus (RSV) induced pulmonary infections. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):4173-4178.
29.	Huang LK, Wu MH, Chang SC. Radiological manifestations of pulmonary tuberculosis in patients subjected to anti-TNF-alpha treatment. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 18(1):95-101, 2014 Jan.
30.	Pereira M, Gazzoni FF, Marchiori E, et al. High-resolution CT findings of pulmonary Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in renal transplant recipients. Br J Radiol. 89(1058):20150686, 2016.
31.	Jung JI, Lee DG, Kim YJ, Yoon HK, Kim CC, Park SH. Pulmonary tuberculosis after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: radiologic findings. J Thorac Imaging. 2009;24(1):10-16.
32.	Lee Y, Song JW, Chae EJ, et al. CT findings of pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacterial infection in non-AIDS immunocompromised patients: a case-controlled comparison with immunocompetent patients. Br J Radiol. 86(1024):20120209, 2013 Apr.
33.	Attenberger UI, Morelli JN, Henzler T, et al. 3 Tesla proton MRI for the diagnosis of pneumonia/lung infiltrates in neutropenic patients with acute myeloid leukemia: initial results in comparison to HRCT. Eur J Radiol. 83(1):e61-6, 2014 Jan.
34.	Nagel SN, Kim D, Penzkofer T, et al. Pulmonary MRI at 3T: Non-enhanced pulmonary magnetic resonance Imaging Characterization Quotients for differentiation of infectious and malignant lesions. Eur J Radiol. 89:33-39, 2017 Apr.
35.	Yan C, Tan X, Wei Q, et al. Lung MRI of invasive fungal infection at 3 Tesla: evaluation of five different pulse sequences and comparison with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Eur Radiol. 25(2):550-7, 2015 Feb.
36.	Haas BM, Clayton JD, Elicker BM, Ordovas KG, Naeger DM. CT-Guided Percutaneous Lung Biopsies in Patients With Suspicion for Infection May Yield Clinically Useful Information. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 208(2):459-463, 2017 Feb.
37.	Kothary N, Bartos JA, Hwang GL, Dua R, Kuo WT, Hofmann LV. Computed tomography-guided percutaneous needle biopsy of indeterminate pulmonary pathology: efficacy of obtaining a diagnostic sample in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. CLIN LUNG CANCER. 11(4):251-6, 2010 Jul 01.
38.	Lass-Florl C, Aigner M, Nachbaur D, et al. Diagnosing filamentous fungal infections in immunocompromised patients applying computed tomography-guided percutaneous lung biopsies: a 12-year experience. Infection. 45(6):867-875, 2017 Dec.
39.	Shi JM, Cai Z, Huang H, et al. Role of CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy in diagnosis of pulmonary fungal infection in patients with hematologic diseases. Int J Hematol. 2009;89(5):624-627.
40.	Rossi SE, Erasmus JJ, McAdams HP, Sporn TA, Goodman PC. Pulmonary drug toxicity: radiologic and pathologic manifestations. [Review] [33 refs]. Radiographics. 20(5):1245-59, 2000 Sep-Oct.
41.	Schwaiblmair M, Behr W, Haeckel T, Markl B, Foerg W, Berghaus T. Drug induced interstitial lung disease. Open Respir Med J. 2012;6:63-74.
42.	Krishnam MS, Suh RD, Tomasian A, et al. Postoperative complications of lung transplantation: radiologic findings along a time continuum. Radiographics. 27(4):957-74, 2007 Jul-Aug.
43.	Logan PM, Miller RR, Muller NL. Cryptogenic organizing pneumonia in the immunocompromised patient: radiologic findings and follow-up in 12 patients. Can Assoc Radiol J. 46(4):272-9, 1995 Aug.
44.	Pena E, Souza CA, Escuissato DL, et al. Noninfectious pulmonary complications after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: practical approach to imaging diagnosis. [Review]. Radiographics. 34(3):663-83, 2014 May-Jun.
45.	Blom JW, Doggen CJ, Osanto S, Rosendaal FR. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. JAMA. 2005;293(6):715-722.
46.	Liu Y.. Demonstrations of AIDS-associated malignancies and infections at FDG PET-CT. [Review]. Ann Nucl Med. 25(8):536-46, 2011 Oct.
47.	Noraini AR, Gay E, Ferrara C, et al. PET-CT as an effective imaging modality in the staging and follow-up of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder following solid organ transplantation. Singapore Med J. 50(12):1189-95, 2009 Dec.
48.	Gupta S, Sultenfuss M, Romaguera JE, et al. CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsies in patients with haematologic malignancies and undiagnosed pulmonary lesions. Hematological Oncology. 28(2):75-81, 2010 Jun.
49.	Pathak V, Rendon IS, Hasalla I, Tsegaye A. Evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodule in human immunodeficiency virus infected patients. Respir Care. 57(7):1115-20, 2012 Jul.
50.	Carrafiello G, Lagana D, Nosari AM, et al. Utility of computed tomography (CT) and of fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) in early diagnosis of fungal pulmonary infections. Study of infections from filamentous fungi in haematologically immunodeficient patients. Radiol Med (Torino). 111(1):33-41, 2006 Feb.
51.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.