ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Case Report: Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma mimicking interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features: diagnostic pitfalls and reflections.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) is an exclusionary diagnosis that requires the exclusion of alternative etiologies, including malignancy. Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (IMA) of the lung can radiologically and clinically mimic interstitial lung disease (ILD), and some lung cancer patients may present with non-specific autoantibody positivity, creating a diagnostic trap that may lead to misdiagnosis as IPAF. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data, serology, imaging, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) cytology, and pathology of a 78-year-old female patient, combined with a literature review. Results: The patient presented with cough and sputum production lasting two months. Chest CT showed diffuse bilateral high-density opacities with septal thickening. Pulmonary function tests revealed moderate diffusion impairment, and Velcro crackles were present on auscultation. Autoantibodies were positive for ANA (1:100, cytoplasmic granular pattern), AMA-M2 (161.75 U/mL), RF (78.2 IU/mL), and anti-CCP antibody (300 U/mL). Notably, all systemic inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP, and six cytokines) were normal. BALF and liquid-based cytology revealed no malignant cells. Rheumatology consultation favored a diagnosis of IPAF, and empirical methylprednisolone 40 mg/d was initiated. After one week, chest CT showed no resolution; mycophenolate mofetil and nintedanib were added. Despite standard anti-infective and immunosuppressive therapy, imaging remained unchanged and tumor markers remained persistently elevated. CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy was performed, and histopathological examination confirmed invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (CK7+, focal CK20+, TTF-1-, Napsin A-). Conclusion: In patients with suspected IPAF, the combination of normal inflammatory markers with other atypical features should prompt re-evaluation of the autoimmune etiology. The lepidic growth pattern of IMA can lead to false-negative BALF cytology; a negative result does not exclude malignancy. As an exclusionary diagnosis, IPAF must be established only after thorough exclusion of infection, malignancy, and other causes. Immunosuppressive therapy should not be initiated based solely on autoantibody positivity and ILD imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.