I am, however, intrigued by the absence of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) as a histologic diagnosis, one of the most common diagnoses in previous studies on cryobiopsies. Three possible explanations may be suggested: this observation is due to chance, to a distinctive patient selection, or a specific technique. The authors suggest that selection bias may have played a role as patients with suspected UIP could have been referred directly to surgical lung biopsy. Justified or not, this would be somewhat at odds with the downward nationwide trend, and it would be interesting to know how many patients indeed underwent surgical lung biopsy for DPLD in the same time period. In addition, some data on high-resolution CT imaging would have been useful, offering some insight into the type of patients selected for cryobiopsies. Aside from chance, then, the other possibility is of course a difference in technique. As pointed out in the authors’ own review, previous studies included more UIP diagnoses, but also more pneumothoraces. Cryobiopsy samples obtained closer to the pleura (including the periphery of the secondary pulmonary lobule) could have allowed a UIP diagnosis in some of these cases. It is also noteworthy that cryobiopsy samples were obtained in only one lobe in 80% of these cases. Given the interlobar heterogeneity of UIP, these results are perhaps not all that surprising.