Open Access

The natural history of adult pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis: a prospective multicentre study

  • Abdellatif Tazi1, 2Email author,
  • Constance de Margerie3,
  • Jean Marc Naccache4,
  • Stéphanie Fry5,
  • Stéphane Dominique6,
  • Stéphane Jouneau7,
  • Gwenaël Lorillon1,
  • Emmanuelle Bugnet1,
  • Raphael Chiron8,
  • Benoit Wallaert5, 9,
  • Dominique Valeyre10 and
  • Sylvie Chevret2, 11
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases201510:30

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-015-0249-2

Received: 10 December 2014

Accepted: 3 March 2015

Published: 14 March 2015

Abstract

Background

The natural history of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis (PLCH) has been unclear due to the absence of prospective studies. The rate of patients who experience an early progression of their disease is unknown. Additionally, conflicting effects of smoking cessation on the outcome of PLCH have been reported.

Methods

In this prospective, multicentre study, 58 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PLCH were comprehensively evaluated over a two-year period. Our objectives were to estimate the incidence of early progression of the disease and to evaluate the impact of smoking status on lung function outcomes. Lung function deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1 and/or FVC and/or DLCO, compared with baseline values. At each visit, smoking status was recorded based on the patients’ self-reports and urinary cotinine measurements that were blinded for the patients. The cumulative incidence of lung function outcomes over time was estimated using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox models with time-dependent covariates were used to calculate the hazards ratios of the lung function deterioration associated with smoking status with adjustment for potential confounders.

Results

The cumulative incidence of lung function deterioration at 24 months was 38% (22% for FEV1 and DLCO, and 9% for FVC). In the multivariate analysis, smoking status and PaO2 at inclusion were the only factors associated with the risk of lung function deterioration. The patients’ smoking statuses markedly changed over time. Only 20% of the patients quit using tobacco for the entire study period. Nevertheless, being a non-smoker was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent lung function deterioration, even after adjustment for baseline predictive factors. By serial lung computed tomography, the extent of cystic lesions increased in only 11% of patients.

Conclusions

Serial lung function evaluation on a three- to six-month basis is essential for the follow-up of patients with recently diagnosed PLCH to identify those who experience an early progression of their disease. These patients are highly addicted to tobacco, and robust efforts should be undertaken to include them in smoking cessation programs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: No: NCT01225601.

Keywords

Langerhans cell histiocytosis Lung function High resolution computed tomography Smoking Outcome Health quality of life

Background

Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis (PLCH) is a rare cystic disorder of unknown origin that occurs in young adult smokers [1-3]. The disease can resolve spontaneously, remain stable, or progress to respiratory failure with severe pulmonary hypertension (PH), requiring lung transplantation [1,2,4].

The natural history of PLCH is unclear due to a lack of prospective studies. In a long-term, multicentre, retrospective study, we found that lung function had deteriorated in approximately half of patients during the five years of follow-up [5]. We also found that a subgroup of patients experienced a dramatic decline in their forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) early after the diagnosis of their disease [5].

The triggering role of smoking in PLCH has been highlighted by the finding that most children with systemic LCH who develop lung involvement in adolescence or adulthood begin smoking before this event [6]. Smoking cessation is an essential goal for these patients, but conflicting effects of smoking cessation on the outcome of the disease have been reported, particularly because the smoking statuses of the patients have been based on self-reports, and no surrogate markers have been used to ascertain smoking cessation [4,5,7-12]. Furthermore, the smoking status of the patients during follow-up has not been assessed in these retrospective studies.

The creation of the Reference Centre for Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis provided a unique opportunity to conduct a longitudinal, prospective study in a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed PLCH, who were comprehensively evaluated over time. The main objectives of this study were the following: 1) to estimate the incidence of progression early in the course of the disease; and 2) to rigorously assess the smoking status of the patients during follow-up and to seek an association between smoking status and subsequent lung function outcomes.

Methods

Study design

This prospective, multicentre study was conducted by the French National Reference Centre for Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis, in collaboration with six hospital pulmonary departments. The inclusion period was from May 2006 to April 2009. The study protocol was approved by the appropriate ethics committee in February 2006 and was registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01225601). The study was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the Delegation for Clinical Research of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris. The sponsors had no role in the design, conduct, or data analysis of the study.

Study subjects

Consecutive patients 18 years of age or older who were referred for PLCH to the participating centres were considered eligible, provided they received no treatment for their disease. The diagnosis of PLCH either was histologically confirmed or was based on the following: 1) an appropriate clinical setting, 2) a typical lung high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) showing the combination of nodules, cavitated nodules and thick- and thin-walled cysts, predominantly in the upper and middle lung fields with relative sparing of lung bases; 3) a marked predominance of alveolar macrophages in bronchoalveolar lavage, with no lymphocytosis and no pathogen; and 4) exclusion of alternative diagnoses [1,5]. The patients’ records were systematically reviewed to confirm the PLCH diagnosis at the time of inclusion.

All of the patients provided written informed consent. Additional details on the inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in the Additional file 1.

Follow-up

The patients were managed in an outpatient manner at each study centre. Study visits occurred at baseline and at three, six, 12, 18, and 24 months. The patients were strongly encouraged to stop smoking at inclusion and during all of the follow-up visits in the study, including the use of dedicated smoking cessation consultations at each participating centre. The prescription of medications used in the smoking cessation programs was left to the discretion of the physician investigators.

At each visit, clinical evaluation, smoking status (based on the patients’ self-reports and urinary cotinine measurements blinded for the patients) [13], lung function, blood gases, and 6-minute walk test results were recorded. The patients also completed the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) [14]. Lung HRCT and Doppler echocardiography (as a screening test for PH) [15] were performed every six months. The evaluations performed at each visit are detailed in the Additional file 1.

Data collection

A standardised case report form was completed at each investigation centre. The data were monitored by independent clinical research assistants. All of the HRCT scans were centrally analysed by a radiologist (C de M) and a chest physician (AT), both of whom had no knowledge of the clinical or functional findings. Semi-quantitative nodular and cystic CT scores were calculated, and the patients were classified into subgroups according to the CT score values, as previously described [5]. The presence of other smoking-related lung abnormalities (ground glass opacities and emphysema) were also recorded [16,17]. During the follow-ups, an HRCT score variation of at least four points was considered significant. Additional details about the lung CT analyses and on the scoring that was used is provided in the Additional file 1.

Endpoints

The primary outcome was the progression of PLCH, based on lung function deterioration, defined as a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, forced vital capacity (FVC) and/or the diffusing capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) compared with the baseline values.

Additionally, because prolonged constitutional symptoms and the occurrence of multiple pneumothoraces were reportedly associated with poor outcomes of PLCH [18], patients presenting these features during their follow-up were also considered as having progressive disease, even in the absence of the deterioration of lung function.

Secondary outcomes included variations in the lung function parameters over time, the 6-minute walk test and blood gas results, HRCT findings, SGRQ scores, and the occurrence of PH.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics are presented, namely the mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range [IQR]) values.

The cumulative incidence of the lung function outcome over time was estimated using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent covariates were used to calculate the cause-specific hazards ratio (HR) of lung function deterioration associated with smoking status, while fully adjusting for potential confounders. The time-varying smoking patterns were modelled with three covariates: 1) the subject’s smoking status (smoker or non-smoker) at the current visit; 2) the subject’s smoking status over the previous six or 12 months; and 3) tobacco non-smoker status during the entire study period.

Mixed models incorporating repeated measures over time on the same subjects (generally correlated) were used for the continuous outcome measurements (i.e., lung function parameters and HRCT scores).

All of the statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and R 3.0.2 (http://www.R-project.org/). Two-sided P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Study population

Sixty-three patients with PLCH were enrolled in the study. Five patients were excluded (three patients were immediately lost to follow-up after inclusion, one patient withdrew his informed consent, and one patient with lymphangioleiomyomatosis had been erroneously included).

The disease was isolated in the lung in all but two patients who had associated localised bone lesions. The diagnosis of PLCH was histologically confirmed in 21 patients (36%; surgical lung biopsy, n = 20; bone biopsy, n = 1). The median time between the diagnosis of PLCH and inclusion in the study was 3.8 months (IQR: 2–7 months). The characteristics of the patients at the time of inclusion are shown in Table 1. No superimposed lung HRCT ground glass opacities were observed, whereas emphysema was present in 5 patients (localised n = 3, diffuse n = 2, both with histologically proven PLCH).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the patients*

Characteristic

N = 58

Age, yrs

35.6 ± 10.8

Female sex, n (%)

31 (53)

Race, n (%)

 

 White

55 (95)

 Other

3 (5)

Smoking history, pack-years

21 ± 17

 At diagnosis, n (%)

 

  Current smokers

56 (97)

  Ex-smokers

2 (3)

 At inclusion, n (%)

 

  Current smokers

39 (67)

Clinical features, n (%)

 

 Asymptomatic

21 (36)

 Cough

30 (52)

 Dyspnoea

26 (45)

  NYHA class II/III

23/2

 History of pneumothorax

11 (19)

 Constitutional symptoms†

6 (10)

Pulmonary function testing

 

 FEV1

 

  Volume, ml

2974 ± 839

  % predicted

87 ± 18

 FVC

 

  Volume, ml

3787 ± 1036

  % predicted

93 ± 18

 FEV1/FVC, %

75.5 ± 8.8

 TLC, % predicted

100.6 ± 15.3

 RV, % predicted

116.5 ± 36.2

 RV/TLC, % predicted

114.4 ± 30.2

 DLCO, % predicted

64.3 ± 13.2

 Normal lung function, n (%)

7 (12)

 Restriction, n (%)‡

5 (9)

 Obstruction, n (%)‡

15 (26)

 Bronchial hyperreactivity, n (%)‡

6 (10)

 DLCO <80% predicted, n (%)‡

49 (87)

PaO2, mm Hg

87 ± 10

6-Minute walk distance, m

514 ± 93

HRCT nodular score§

8 ± 4.5

 Nodular score subgroup, n (%)

  Low

26 (46)

  Intermediate

20 (36)

  High

10 (18)

HRCT cystic score§

8.2 ± 5

 Cystic score subgroup, n (%)

 Low

30 (54)

 Intermediate

18 (32)

 High

6 (11)

 Very high

2 (3)

SGRQ score║

20.2 ± 18.8

Definition of abbreviations: IQR interquartile range, NYHA New York Heart Association, FEV 1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FVC forced vital capacity, TLC total lung capacity, RV residual volume, DL CO diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, PaO 2 arterial partial oxygen pressure, HRCT high-resolution computed tomography, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

*Plus-minus values are the means ± SDs.

†Constitutional symptoms were associated with respiratory symptoms in four of six patients.

‡Lung function restriction was defined as TLC <80% of the predicted value and obstruction as an FEV1/FVC ratio <70%. Bronchial hyperreactivity corresponded to a post-bronchodilator FEV1 improvement of >12% and >200 ml compared with the baseline values. The DLCO was available for 56 patients.

§HRCT was available at inclusion for 56 patients. The maximal values for the HRCT nodular and cystic scores were 18 and 24, respectively.

║SGRQ was available at inclusion for 55 patients. The scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse functioning.

Doppler echocardiography was available at inclusion for 57 patients and none had criteria for PH. The median tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity was 2.4 m∙s−1 (IQR 2.3-2.5 m∙s−1), the median pulmonary arterial systolic pressure was 30 mm Hg (IQR 26–33 mm Hg), and no patient had increased dimensions of right heart chambers.

The patients were followed for a median of 24 months (IQR: 22–25 months). Fifty-five and 44 patients were evaluable at one and two years of follow-up, respectively. One patient incidentally died of myocardial infarction five months after inclusion, and 13 patients discontinued the study. No patients received systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressive treatment during the study. A flow chart of the study is provided in the Additional file 1.

Progression of PLCH

No patients complained of constitutional symptoms during the follow-up visits. Two patients experienced pneumothorax at one and 12 months after inclusion, respectively; pneumothorax spontaneously resolved in one case and was treated by surgical pleurodesis in the other. No patient progressed from isolated PLCH to multisystem disease.

Compared with their baseline values, 23 (40%) patients had a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, FVC and/or DLCO within a median of one year of follow-up (Table 2). More precisely, FEV1, FVC, and DLCO decreased by at least 15% in 13 (22%) patients, six (10%) patients, and 14 (24%) patients, respectively. The two patients who had a pneumothorax during their follow-up had previously presented a decrease in their lung function. Figure 1 shows the cumulative incidences of the deterioration of lung function parameters during the study. The estimated cumulative incidence of deterioration at 24 months was 38% (95% CI: 25-51%) considering any functional parameter, 22% (95% CI: 11-33%) for FEV1 and DLCO and 9% (95% CI: 1-16%) for FVC.
Table 2

Characteristics of the 23 patients with deteriorating lung function*

Parameter (n)

Time of deterioration month

Baseline

Deterioration

Extent of deterioration

Absolute value†

Absolute value†

P value‡

% of predicted

%

 

FVC (n = 6)

14.3 (8 · 4–23)

3350 (3100–3810)

2745 (2330–2950)

−665 (−770; −590)

0.03

  

98 (85–112)

80 (64–94)

−20 (−22.6; −16.2)

 

FEV1 (n = 13)

12.8 (5.8–18.2)

2540 (2390–3300)

1990 (1740–2770)

−460 (−530; −400)

<0.001

  

90.1 (80; 96 · 0)

77.2 (67 · 9; 78 · 7)

−16.7 (−18.8; −15.8)

 

DLCO (n = 14)

11.7 (6.2–17.6)

6 (4.7-6.5)

4.82 (3.6-5.31)

−1.17 (−1 · 4; −0.95)

<0.001

  

64.3 (57–72)

50 (44–60)

−17.8 (−19 · 2; −16 · 3)

 

6-minute walk distance, m

 

505 (480–547)

529 (471–564)

0 (−36; +31.5)

0.71

PaO2, mm Hg

 

79 (75–88)

86 (79–90)

−1 (−6; +12)

0.38

SGRQ score§

 

21.8 (10 · 8–43 · 5)

16.1 (7.3–28.7)

−3.2 (−11.2; +2.1)

0.12

HRCT nodular score║

 

7.5 (6–10)

6.5 (5–10)

0 (0–0)

0.69

HRCT cystic score

 

6.5 (5–11)

7 (4–12)

0 (0–2)

0.18

Definition of abbreviations: FVC forced vital capacity, FEV 1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, DL CO diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, PaO 2 the arterial partial oxygen pressure, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, HRCT high-resolution computed tomography.

*Results are expressed as the medians and interquartile ranges (in parentheses). Lung function deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 15% in the FEV1, FVC and/or DLCO.

†Absolute values are expressed in ml for FVC and FEV1 and in mmol/min/kPa for DLCO.

‡A paired t-test was used for the comparisons.

§SGRQ was available for 22 patients. Values ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse functioning.

║The maximal values for the HRCT nodular and cystic scores were 18 and 24, respectively.

Figure 1

The estimated cumulative incidence of lung function deterioration during the study. The overall lung function corresponds to a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, FVC, and/or DLCO. FEV1 = forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC = forced vital capacity; DLCO = diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide.

Patients with lung function deterioration

Table 2 summarises the characteristics of the patients with lung function deterioration. At the time of deterioration, 17 patients (74%) had a functional class of dyspnoea that was ≥2 according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) criteria. Among the 13 patients with a decline in FEV1, nine (69%) had an obstructive pattern at the time of deterioration (FEV1: 66 ± 10.4% of the predicted value). Among the six patients who had decreases in their FVC, only one patient had a restrictive pattern (TLC: 70% of the predicted value), whereas the remaining five patients had a parallel increase in their residual volume (RV), resulting in a normal TLC (TLC: 112 ± 9.5% of the predicted value). Eight patients had an isolated decrease in DLCO (56 ± 12% of the predicted value at the time of deterioration). Serial Doppler echocardiograms were available for 7 of these 8 subjects and showed criteria for likely PH in one patient at 18 months of follow-up (tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity: 3.34 m∙s−1; pulmonary arterial systolic pressure: 54 mm Hg). PH was confirmed by right heart catheterisation (mean pulmonary artery pressure: 29 mm Hg). The results of the 6-minute walk test did not significantly vary between baseline and the time of lung function deterioration.

Smoking statuses of the patients during the study

The smoking statuses of the patients at each visit were based on their self-reports and their urinary cotinine measurements for all of the cases, except for one patient who was undergoing nicotine replacement therapy. Figure 2 shows the variations in the smoking statuses of the patients over time. At inclusion, 39 patients currently smoked, and 19 patients had stopped smoking between diagnosis and their inclusion in the study. Among these 19 non-smoking patients at inclusion, 11 patients remained non-smokers throughout their follow-ups in the study for a median duration of 24.2 months (IQR: 23–25 months), whereas eight patients resumed smoking for variable periods of time. Conversely, among the 39 patients who smoked at inclusion, three patients stopped smoking transiently during their follow-ups for three or six months, and five patients were weaned from tobacco for six (n = 1), 12 (n = 1), 18 (n = 1), or 24 (n = 2) months. Taken together, 13 (22%) patients remained weaned from tobacco throughout their follow-ups in the study.
Figure 2

Detailed changes in the smoking statuses of the patients during the study. The patients’ smoking statuses were recorded at each scheduled visit based on their self-reports and urinary cotinine concentrations (except in patients using nicotine replacement therapy). Each line represents a patient. Periods of current smoking are displayed in black, periods of smoking cessation in grey, and periods of loss to follow-up in white.

Based on their lung function parameters, there was no difference in severity between non-smoking and smoking patients at the time of inclusion (p > 0.1).

Factors predictive of lung function deterioration

Table 3 presents the detailed univariate analyses of the factors predictive of lung function deterioration. At inclusion, the factors that influenced the risk of lung function deterioration were older age, the presence of an airflow obstruction pattern, decreased PaO2, and a high SGRQ score. Smoking status at inclusion was also associated with an increased risk of lung function deterioration. In contrast, FEV1 impairment at inclusion, the initial presence of air trapping (defined as an RV/TLC ratio of >120% of the predicted value), and HRCT cystic-score values were not associated with further deterioration in lung function. When considering the predictive factors jointly in a multivariable model, only smoking status and PaO2 at inclusion still influenced the hazard of lung function deterioration. Indeed, smoking at inclusion was associated with an increased hazard of progression (HR = 3.28; 95% CI: 1.00-11.1; p = 0.05); conversely, the higher the PaO2 level was at inclusion, the lower the risk was of progression (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98; p = 0.0036). Notably, among the patients who smoked at inclusion, those whose lung function deteriorated during follow-up were older (41.4 ± 11.3 yrs vs. 32.8 ± 7.6 yrs, p = 0.016), had lower PaO2 values (81.1 ± 9.1 mm Hg vs. 91.0 ± 7.6 mm Hg, p = 0.0013) and had somewhat higher SGRQ scores (26.2 ± 20.3 vs. 18.4 ± 18.5, p = 0.16) compared with those whose lung function did not deteriorate.
Table 3

Univariate analyses of the predictive factors (measured at inclusion) of lung function deterioration*

Characteristic

Deterioration (n = 23)

No deterioration (n = 35)

HR (95% CI)

P value

Demographic features

    

Age, yrs

41.1 ± 12.0**

32.0 ± 8.2

1.7 (1.2-2.4)†

0.002

Sex, n (%)

    

 Male

12 (52)

15 (43)

1.0

 

 Female

11 (48)

20 (57)

0.98 (0.4-2.3)

0.97

Smoking status, n (%)

    

 Smokers

20 (87)

19 (54)

1.0

 

 Non-smokers

3 (13)

16 (46)

0.25 (0.1-0.85)

0.027

Clinical features, n (%)

    

 Asymptomatic

6 (26)

15 (43)

0.6 (0.2-1.7)

0.38

 Cough

10 (48)

10 (34)

1.3 (0.5-3.2)

0.54

 Dyspnoea

13 (57)

12 (34)

2.0 (0.8-4.6)

0.11

Lung function parameters

    

 FEV1

    

 % predicted

85.9 ± 13.7

87.8 ± 20.4

0.9 (0.7-1.2)†

0.45

 ≤59% predicted, n (%)

5 (14)

1 (4)

1 · 0

 

60-79% of predicted

7 (20)

6 (26)

2.8 (0.3-23.3)

0.35

 ≥80% predicted

23 (66)

16 (70)

2.6 (0.3-19.7)

0.36

 FVC

    

 % predicted

92.4 ± 19.6

93.4 ± 17.1

0.9 (0.7-1.2)†

0.92

 TLC

    

 % predicted

101.0 ± 18.0

100.3 ± 13.4

1.0 (0.8-1.3)†

0.98

 Restriction, n (%)‡

3 (13)

2 (6)

1.9 (0.5-6.4)

0.32

 RV

    

 % predicted

118.8 ± 33.4

115.0 ± 38.4

1.0 (0.9-1.1)†

0.67

 RV/TLC

36.1 ± 9.6

32.0 ± 9.6

1.0 (1.0-1.02)

0.58

 Air trapping, n (%)‡

10 (43)

11 (32)

1.7 (0.7-3.9)

0.23

 FEV1 /FVC

74.1 ± 9.8

76.5 ± 8.1

0.98 (0.9-1.0)

0.42

 Airflow obstruction, n (%)‡

10 (43)

5 (14)

2.9 (1.3-6.8)

0.014

 DLCO

    

 % predicted

63.8 ± 12.9

64.6 ± 13.2

0.3 (0.0-9.3)†

0.50

 <72% predicted, n (%)

17 (74)

24 (69)

1.0

 

 ≥72% predicted

6 (26)

11 (31)

0.7 (0.3-1.7)

0.42

 6-Minute walk distance, m

    

 % of the predicted value

78.7 ± 14.0

73.2 ± 10.1

1.4 (0.9-2.0)†

0.09

 PaO2

81.4 ± 9.7

90.8 ± 9.0

0.94 (0.91-0.98)†

0.0014

Lung HRCT§

    

 Nodular score

8.4 ± 4.8

7.8 ± 4.3

1.1 (0.7-2.0)║

0.46

 Cystic score

8.0 ± 3.9

8.4 ± 5.7

1.0 (0.7-1.4)║

0.89

SGRQ score

25.7 ± 20.1

15.1 ± 16.8

1.3 (1.1-1.6)†

0.012

Definition of abbreviations: HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, FEV 1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FVC forced vital capacity, TLC total lung capacity, RV residual volume, DL CO diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, PaO 2 arterial partial oxygen pressure, HRCT high-resolution computed tomography, SGRQ St George’s ;Respiratory Questionnaire.

*Lung function deterioration was defined by a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, FVC and/or DLCO compared with the baseline values.

**Plus-minus values are the means ± SDs.

†Reported HRs are given for an increase of 10 units.

‡Lung function restriction was defined as a TLC <80% of the predicted value, air trapping as an RV/TLC ratio >120% of the predicted value and obstruction as an FEV1/FVC ratio <70%.

§HRCT was available at inclusion for 56 patients (22 and 34 patients in each group). The maximal values for the HRCT nodular and cystic scores were 18 and 24, respectively.

║Reported HRs are given for an increase of 4 points.

¶SGRQ was available for 55 patients at inclusion (23 and 32 patients in each group). The scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse functioning.

Lung function outcomes according to smoking status of the patients

Table 4 presents the estimated effects of the patients’ smoking statuses (at inclusion and over time) on lung function deterioration. Tobacco use over time was associated with an increased hazard of pulmonary function deterioration. Conversely, smoking discontinuation during the study was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent lung function deterioration, even for patients who had stopped smoking during the previous six months. Moreover, these effects of smoking status remained statistically significant when adjusting for the potential confounder identified by the multivariate prognostic analysis (i.e., PaO2 at inclusion). In contrast, smoking status over time was not associated with variations in the HRCT scores (data not shown).
Table 4

Estimated effects of the smoking status at baseline and over time on the hazard of subsequent lung function deterioration*

Smoking status

HR (95 % CI) Unadjusted

P value

HR (95 % CI)

P value Adjusted†

Baseline non-smoking

0.25 (0.07-0.85)

0.027

0.30 (0.09-1.00)

0.05

Time-dependent non-smoking

0.25 (0.08-0.97)

0.04

0.34 (0.10-1.14)

0.08

No smoking during the past six months

0.25 (0.07-0.84)

0.025

0.29 (0.08-0.97)

0.044

No smoking during the past 12 months

0.23 (0.07-0.79)

0.020

0.28 (0.08-0.97)

0.045

No smoking during the study period

0.22 (0.06-0.73)

0.014

0.28 (0.08-0.94)

0.040

Definition of abbreviations: FEV 1 forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FVC forced vital capacity, DL CO diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval.

*Lung function deterioration was defined as a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, FVC and/or DLCO compared with the baseline values.

†The adjustment predictive factor at inclusion was baseline PaO2, as selected by the multivariable prognostic model.

Secondary outcomes of the study

Considering the entire study population, the mean yearly decline in lung function parameters of the entire population was 68 ± 90 ml (1.2 ± 1.8%) for FEV1, 43 ± 107 ml (0.1 ± 1.7%) for FVC and 0.24 ± 0.2 mmol/min/kPa (1.4 ± 1.5%) for DLCO. However, at the last follow-up, 24 (41%) patients had an airflow obstruction (FEV1: 68.4 ± 14.5% of the predicted value), and five (9%) patients exhibited a restrictive pattern (TLC: 73.6 ± 4.5% of the predicted value). Notably, these patients did not experience pneumothoraces nor have other smoking-related interstitial lung disease features (i.e., ground glass opacities) superimposed on their lung HRCT during during their follow-up. Six patients had a PaO2 of <70 mm Hg (61 ± 10 mm Hg) at the last evaluation.

Among the 52 patients who had serial Doppler echocardiograms, with the exception of the patient described above, no other patient exhibited criteria for PH.

Figure 3 displays the variations in the lung HRCT scores during the study. At 24 months, the cumulative incidence of cystic score deterioration was estimated to be 10.7% (95% CI: 2.5-19%). Additional details about the variations in the secondary outcomes over time are provided in the Additional file 1.
Figure 3

Variations in the lung HRCT scores at the different scheduled visits of the study. The data are expressed as the means ± SEMs of the lung HRCT nodular and cystic scores. The lung HRCT was available at inclusion for 56 patients. The maximal values for the HRCT nodular and cystic scores are 18 and 24, respectively.

Discussion

This multicentre, prospective study evaluated the early outcome of a homogeneous cohort of patients with untreated PLCH. We were able to demonstrate that 1) a substantial proportion of patients experienced an important decline in their lung function parameters within two years of follow-up and 2) the smoking status of the patients was associated with the risk of subsequent lung function deterioration.

All of the subjects had recent PLCH, as evidenced by the high percentage of initially asymptomatic patients and the low impairment of lung function at inclusion. Similarly, the HRCT findings were also characteristic of recent disease because all of the patients had nodular lesions, whereas less than 15% had high HRCT cystic scores [5,19].

Considering the entire study population, lung function varied weakly during the study period, as exemplified by the mean yearly decline in lung function parameters. Strikingly, however, 40% of the patients presented a decrease of at least 15% in FEV1, FVC and/or DLCO within a median of one year of follow-up. Although the decreases in FVC, FEV1, and DLCO were equally significant, decreases were more frequent for the last two parameters. The magnitude of the FEV1 decrease in this subgroup of patients was beyond that observed in currently smoking COPD patients [20], and thus probably reflected bronchiolar damage caused by LCH lesions [2,3].

In accordance with the results of retrospective studies, we found, in univariate analyses, that older age and the presence of airflow obstruction at inclusion were associated with worse outcomes [5,11,18,21]. In the present study, decreased PaO2 and an altered respiratory quality of life, as assessed by the SGRQ, were also associated with an increased risk of lung function deterioration. In contrast, we did not confirm that a decrease in FEV1 or DLCO or the presence of air trapping was associated with a poor outcome [5,11,18,21]. These differences were most likely due to the heterogeneity of the patients included in the retrospective studies, particularly concerning the duration of their disease [5,11,18,21]. Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis, only baseline PaO2 remained associated with disease progression. We hypothesize that the reason behind this correlation was that lower PaO2 may reflect more impaired gas exchange in the lung and/or pulmonary vascular involvement in some patients. Finally, the 6-minute walk test was not associated with lung function deterioration.

Based on both self-reports and blinded urinary cotinine measurements, the smoking status of the patients markedly changed over time, and only a minority (approximately 20%) were weaned from tobacco during the study period. The significant variations in smoking status over time most likely explained the discrepancies reported in previous studies concerning the effects of smoking on the outcomes of the disease [4,5,7-12]. Here, using appropriate, time-dependent Cox models, we formally showed that a non-smoker status was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent lung-function deterioration, even in patients who stopped smoking for at least six months during follow-up. Importantly, this effect on lung function outcome persisted even after adjusting for PaO2 at inclusion. Of note, no differences in the severity of baseline lung function were observed between non-smoking and smoking patients. In contrast, smoking status over time was not associated with variations in HRCT findings.

Airflow obstruction was the predominant lung function profile observed in the entire study population, whereas true lung restriction, based on the TLC measured by plethysmography, was observed in less than 10% of the patients. Notably, these patients did not experience pneumothoraces nor have other smoking-related interstitial lung disease features (i.e., ground glass opacities) superimposed on their lung HRCT during their follow-up. By serial plethysmography, patients with a decreased FVC had a parallel increase in their RV, as previously observed in bronchiolar disorders [22]. Although PH has primarily been described in patients with longstanding PLCH [23-25], we found here that such complications may rarely occur earlier in the disease course.

Finally, whereas constitutional symptoms and the occurrence of pneumothoraces were reportedly associated with poor outcomes of PLCH [18], we did not observe constitutional symptoms during follow-up in patients with isolated lung involvement, whereas pneumothoraces occurred rarely during follow-up.

This study has some limitations. Although recruiting a cohort of 58 patients with newly diagnosed PLCH over a period of three years was a challenge, given the size of the cohort, one could fail to identify factors with a minor influence on the outcome of the disease.

Conclusions

Because lung function can deteriorate early during the course of recent PLCH in a substantial proportion of patients and is difficult to predict in an individual patient, it is important to evaluate patients serially using FEV1, FVC, and DLCO measurements on a three- to six-month basis. An isolated decreased DLCO should prompt screening for PH by Doppler echocardiography. Whereas lung HRCT is essential for diagnosis, systematic close sequential lung HRCTs are of limited value. The 6-minute walk test appears to be less informative than in patients with advanced disease [25]. Given the strong tobacco addictions of patients with PLCH, robust efforts should be undertaken to include these patients in smoking cessation programs.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

DLCO

Diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide

FEV1

Forced expiratory volume in 1 second

FVC: 

Forced vital capacity

HR: 

Hazard ratio

HRCT: 

High-resolution computed tomography

IQR: 

Interquartile range

LCH: 

Langerhans cell histiocytosis

NYHA: 

New York Heart Association

PaO2

Arterial oxygen partial pressure

PH: 

Pulmonary hypertension

PLCH: 

Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis

RV: 

Residual volume

SD: 

Standard deviation

SGRQ: 

St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire

TLC: 

Total lung capacity

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. F. Paganin (Groupe Hospitalier Sud Réunion, Service de Pneumologie et Maladies Infectieuses, La Réunion, France) for participating in the study.

We are also grateful to M. Mao (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris; Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France) and E. Savariau (Institut Universitaire d’Hématologie, Service d’Infographie, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France) for their technical assistance.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Centre National de Référence de l’histiocytose Langerhansienne, Service de Pneumologie
(2)
Univ Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, U1153 CRESS, Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology research team
(3)
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Saint-Louis
(4)
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Avicenne
(5)
Service de Pneumologie et Immuno-allergologie, Centre de compétence des maladies pulmonaires rares, Hôpital Calmette
(6)
Département de Pneumologie, Hôpital Charles Nicolle
(7)
IRSET UMR 1085, Université de Rennes 1; Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Pontchaillou
(8)
Département de Pneumologie, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve
(9)
Université Lille 2
(10)
Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Service de Pneumologie, Hôpital Avicenne
(11)
Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Service de Biostatistique et Information Médicale

References

  1. Suri HS, Yi ES, Nowakowski GS, Vassallo R. Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:16.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Tazi A. Adult pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:1272–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Vassallo R, Ryu JH, Colby TV, Hartman T, Limper AH. Pulmonary Langerhans’-cell histiocytosis. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1969–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Dauriat G, Mal H, Thabut G, Mornex JF, Bertocchi M, Tronc F, et al. Lung transplantation for pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis: a multicenter analysis. Transplant. 2006;81:746–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Tazi A, Marc K, Dominique S, de Bazelaire C, Crestani B, Chinet T, et al. Serial computed tomography and lung function testing in pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis. Eur Respir J. 2012;40:905–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstrand C, Cederlund K, Sandstedt B, Ahström L, Lundell M, Dahlquist G, et al. Pulmonary abnormalities at long-term follow-up of patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001;36:459–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mogulkoc N, Veral A, Bishop PW, Bayindir U, Pickering CA, Egan JJ. Pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis: radiologic resolution following smoking cessation. Chest. 1999;115:1452–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Negrin-Dastis S, Butenda D, Dorzee J, Fastrez J, d’Odémont JP. Complete disappearance of lung abnormalities on high-resolution computed tomography: a case of histiocytosis X. Can Respir J. 2007;14:235–7.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Schönfeld N, Dirks K, Costabel U, Loddenkemper R. Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die Therapie von Lungenkrankheiten. A prospective clinical multicentre study on adult pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2012;29:132–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tazi A, Montcelly L, Bergeron A, Valeyre D, Battesti JP, Hance AJ. Relapsing nodular lesions in the course of adult pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;157:2007–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Vassallo R, Ryu JH, Schroeder DR, Decker PA, Limper AH. Clinical outcomes of pulmonary Langerhans’-cell histiocytosis in adults. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:484–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Westerlaan HE, van der Valk PD. Clinical and radiological evolution in patients with pulmonary Langerhans’ cell histiocytosis. Neth J Med. 2002;60:320–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18:188–204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM. The St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Respir Med. 1991;85 Suppl B:25–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Task Force for Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension of European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Respiratory Society (ERS), International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), Galiè N, Hoeper MM, Humbert M, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J. 2009;34:1219–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Caminati A, Harari S. Smoking-related interstitial pneumonias and pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2006;3:299–306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Vassallo R, Jensen EA, Colby TV, Ryu JH, Douglas WW, Hartman TE, et al. The overlap between respiratory bronchiolitis and desquamative interstitial pneumonia in pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis: high-resolution CT, histologic, and functional correlations. Chest. 2003;124:1199–205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Basset F, Corrin B, Spencer H, Lacronique J, Roth C, Soler P, et al. Pulmonary histiocytosis X. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1978;118:811–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Brauner MW, Grenier P, Tijani K, Battesti JP, Valeyre D. Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis: evolution of lesions on CT scans. Radiology. 1997;204:497–502.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Vestbo J, Edwards LD, Scanlon PD, Yates JC, Agusti A, Bakke P, et al. ECLIPSE Investigators: Changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second over time in COPD. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1184–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Delobbe A, Durieu J, Duhamel A, Wallaert B. Determinants of survival in pulmonary Langerhans’ cell granulomatosis (histiocytosis X). Groupe d’etude en pathologie Interstitielle de la Societe de Pathologie Thoracique du Nord. Eur Respir J. 1996;9:2002–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch 3rd JP, Weigt SS, DerHovanessian A, Fishbein MC, Gutierrez A, Belperio JA. Obliterative (constrictive) bronchiolitis. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;33:509–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Fartoukh M, Humbert M, Capron F, Maître S, Parent F, Le Gall C, et al. Severe pulmonary hypertension in histiocytosis X. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:216–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Harari S, Brenot F, Barberis M, Simmoneau G. Advanced pulmonary histiocytosis X is associated with severe pulmonary hypertension. Chest. 1997;111:1142–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Le Pavec J, Lorillon G, Jaïs X, Tcherakian C, Feuillet S, Dorfmüller P, et al. Pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis-associated pulmonary hypertension: clinical characteristics and impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension therapies. Chest. 2012;142:1150–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Tazi et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement