BACKGROUND: Gallium scintigraphy is frequently used in the evaluation of fever of unknown origin, although its utility has been addressed in only a few studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of patients with FUO in our department. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients from our department who had undergone gallium scintigraphy during the years 1995-2002 for the evaluation of FUO and who met the criteria for the definition of FUO. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data in addition to the results of gallium scintigraphy were documented. The patients were divided into two groups: those with a normal gallium study (group 1) and those with an abnormal gallium study (group 2). The second group was further divided into two groups: those whose gallium study results contributed to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO (group 2A) and those whose gallium study results did not (group 2B). RESULTS: A total of 102 patients met the study criteria. The male: female ratio was 54:48 and the mean age +/- SD was 62.4 +/- 20 years. A final diagnosis had been reached in 63 patients (62%), among whom the etiology was infectious in 54%, neoplastic in 19% and immunologic/ rheumatic in 16%. Forty-one patients (40% of all the patients) (group 2) had an abnormal gallium scintigraphy, and in only 21 patients (21% of all the patients) (group 2A) did the gallium study results contribute to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO. However, in only two patients from group 2A (2% of all the patients in our study) was the contribution of gallium study considered significant or crucial to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of FUO is very limited.
BACKGROUND:Gallium scintigraphy is frequently used in the evaluation of fever of unknown origin, although its utility has been addressed in only a few studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of patients with FUO in our department. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of all patients from our department who had undergone gallium scintigraphy during the years 1995-2002 for the evaluation of FUO and who met the criteria for the definition of FUO. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data in addition to the results of gallium scintigraphy were documented. The patients were divided into two groups: those with a normal gallium study (group 1) and those with an abnormal gallium study (group 2). The second group was further divided into two groups: those whose gallium study results contributed to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO (group 2A) and those whose gallium study results did not (group 2B). RESULTS: A total of 102 patients met the study criteria. The male: female ratio was 54:48 and the mean age +/- SD was 62.4 +/- 20 years. A final diagnosis had been reached in 63 patients (62%), among whom the etiology was infectious in 54%, neoplastic in 19% and immunologic/ rheumatic in 16%. Forty-one patients (40% of all the patients) (group 2) had an abnormal gallium scintigraphy, and in only 21 patients (21% of all the patients) (group 2A) did the gallium study results contribute to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO. However, in only two patients from group 2A (2% of all the patients in our study) was the contribution of gallium study considered significant or crucial to the diagnosis of the cause of FUO. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of FUO is very limited.