Abstract Rationale Accurate diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) remains a significant clinical challenge given the heterogeneity of presentations, nonspecific physical findings, and overlapping radiologic and serologic features. Multidisciplinary discussion (MDD), integrating the expertise of pulmonologists, radiologists, and rheumatologists, has emerged as the gold standard for ILD diagnosis. Despite its widespread endorsement, evidence quantifying the impact of MDD on diagnostic precision and patient outcomes remains limited. Methods An interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary discussion (ILD-MDD) was implemented at a major academic center in New Jersey, comprising specialists in pulmonology, rheumatology, and chest radiology. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all cases reviewed between July 2024 and September 2025 to evaluate the ILD-MDD’s impact on patients’ outcomes including diagnostic accuracy and change in management plans. For patients with available follow-up data, post-MDD diagnostic confirmations were also analyzed. Results Between July 2024 and September 2025, 56 cases were presented at the ILD-MDD. The cohort included 33 females (58.9%) and 23 males (41.1%), with a mean age of 64.5 years. Prior to MDD, 35.7% of patients had a specific diagnosis, which increased to 78.5% following the discussion. The MDD led to a change in diagnosis in 53.4% of cases. The most frequent diagnoses prompting a change were connective tissue disease-associated ILD (18.5%), post-viral ILD (14.8%), hypersensitivity pneumonitis (14.8%), sarcoidosis (11.1%), cystic lung diseases (11.1%), infectious etiologies (11.1%), and idiopathic NSIP (7.4%). Only one case was reclassified as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).The MDD also resulted in modifications to management plans in 60.7% of cases, and further investigations were recommended in 51.7% cases. Fourteen patients had follow-up biopsies available; among these, the MDD diagnosis was confirmed in 8 cases, remained indeterminate in 5, and was refuted in 1. Conclusion The implementation of an ILD-MDD at our academic institution substantially increased diagnostic confidence and led to meaningful changes in patient management. These benefits were most pronounced for non-IPF ILDs, as IPF was correctly classified by most physicians prior to MDD. Our findings support the integration of structured MDDs as a standard component of ILD evaluation to enhance diagnostic accuracy and guide management decisions. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the long-term impact of MDDs on clinical outcomes. This abstract is funded by: None
Hindi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.