| Literature DB >> 28244022 |
Satoshi Yabusaki1, Noriko Oyama-Manabe2, Osamu Manabe3, Kenji Hirata3, Fumi Kato4, Noriyuki Miyamoto1, Yoshihiro Matsuno5, Kohsuke Kudo4, Nagara Tamaki3, Hiroki Shirato1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the positivity, distribution, quantitative degree of vessel inflammation, and clinical characteristics of IgG4-related aortitis/periarteritis and periarteritis (IgG4-aortitis), and to examine the difference in these characteristics between cases with and without IgG4-aortitis, using fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) co-registered with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). We retrospectively evaluated 37 patients with IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) who underwent both FDG-PET/CT and CECT. The arterial SUVmax and its value normalized to the background venous blood pool (BP)-the target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the entire aorta and the major first branches-were measured. Active vascular inflammation was considered in cases with a higher FDG uptake than BP and a thickened arterial wall (>2 mm).Entities:
Keywords: Contrast-enhanced CT; FDG-PET/CT; IgG4-related disease; IgG4-related vascular disease
Year: 2017 PMID: 28244022 PMCID: PMC5328898 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0268-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Patient characteristics
| No. | Age (y) | Sex | Diagnostic criteria | Positive histopathological site | Interval between CECT and FDG-PET/CT(d) | Serum IgG4 value (mg/dL) | Vascular involvement | Other positive site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 79 | F | Definite | Pancreas | 38 | N/A | + | LN, SG, P |
| 2 | 75 | M | Definite | Minor salivary gland | 7 | 953 | + | LN |
| 3 | 61 | M | Definite | Minor salivary gland, bile duct | 7 | 968 | + | LN |
| 4 | 70 | M | Definite | Gall bladder | 9 | 802 | + | LN, P |
| 5 | 67 | M | Definite | Nasal mucosa | 1 | 1390 | + | LN, SG, C |
| 6 | 73 | M | Definite | Bile duct | 17 | 1370 | + | LN, SG, C, P |
| 7 | 74 | M | Definite | Lung | 21 | 384 | + | LN, SG, C |
| 8 | 61 | F | Definite | Pancreas | 12 | 149 | + | LN, SG, P |
| 9 | 71 | M | Definite | − | 43 | N/A | + | LN, P |
| 10 | 77 | M | Definite | − | 6 | N/A | + | LN |
| 11 | 69 | M | Definite | − | 6 | 733 | + | LN, SG |
| 12 | 71 | M | Definite | − | 8 | 469 | + | LN, SG, P |
| 13 | 68 | F | Definite | − | 13 | 571 | + | LN, P |
| 14 | 68 | M | Definite | − | 28 | 877 | + | LN, SG, C, P |
| 15 | 58 | M | Definite | − | 12 | 326 | + | LN, SG, P |
| 16 | 78 | M | Definite | Abdominal aorta | 3 | 225 | − | P |
| 17 | 77 | M | Definite | Bile duct | 8 | 89.8 | − | LN, P |
| 18 | 54 | M | Definite | Nasal mucosa, bile duct | 6 | 455 | − | LN, SG, P |
| 19 | 73 | F | Definite | Lacrimal gland | 28 | N/A | − | LN |
| 20 | 55 | F | Definite | Minor salivary gland | 80 | N/A | − | SG |
| 21 | 60 | F | Definite | Nasal mucosa | 26 | N/A | − | LN, SG |
| 22 | 78 | M | Definite | Minor salivary gland, nasal mucosa | 11 | 888 | − | LN, SG |
| 23 | 50 | M | Definite | Nasal mucosa | 5 | 408 | − | LN, P |
| 24 | 67 | M | Definite | Nasal mucosa | 13 | 377 | − | a |
| 25 | 51 | F | Definite | Lacrimal gland | 1 | 398 | − | LN, SG |
| 26 | 45 | M | Definite | Submandibular gland | 20 | N/A | − | LN, C |
| 27 | 83 | M | Definite | Minor salivary gland | 49 | 905 | − | LN, SG |
| 28 | 78 | F | Definite | Pancreas | 31 | 243 | − | LN, P |
| 29 | 39 | F | Definite | Lymph node | 3 | 479 | − | LN, SG |
| 30 | 75 | M | Definite | − | 88 | N/A | − | b |
| 31 | 73 | F | Definite | − | 56 | N/A | − | LN, SG |
| 32 | 66 | M | Definite | − | 32 | N/A | − | C |
| 33 | 59 | F | Definite | − | 8 | N/A | − | LN, SG, C, P |
| 34 | 67 | M | Definite | − | 33 | 526 | − | C, P |
| 35 | 60 | M | Definite | − | 23 | 862 | − | LN, SG |
| 36 | 46 | F | Definite | − | 30 | 797 | − | LN, SG |
| 37 | 58 | F | Definite | − | 60 | 977 | − | LN, SG |
Y year, d days, M male, F female, + positive, − negative, N/A not available, LN lymph node, SG salivary gland, C chest (pleura/paravertebra), P pancreas
a(Patient no. 24) A patient with small hypovascular lesions in the bilateral kidney on CECT; the FDG-PET/CT findings could not be assessed due to physiological uptake by the renal parenchyma. This patient was treated for IgG4-RD
b(Patient no. 30) A patient with abnormal pancreas findings on CECT, without significant abnormal FDG uptake. The patient was diagnosed as having autoimmune pancreatitis using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Fig. 1CECT (a) and FDG-PET/CT (b) images demonstrating left internal iliac artery involvement (white arrow). Physiological uptake by the urinary tracts (black arrows) cannot be differentiated using FDG-PET/CT alone
Summary of vascular lesions
| No. | TBR | Maximal wall thickness (mm) | Total number of positive vascular regions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TA | Suprarenal AA | Infrarenal AA | IA | TA-branch | AA-branch | |||
| 1 | − | − | − | 2.7 | − | 3.6a | 7.9 | 2 |
| 2 | − | − | 3.7 | 2.8a | − | − | 9.8 | 2 |
| 3 | − | − | 1.6a | 1.6 | − | − | 3.0 | 2 |
| 4 | − | − | 2.6a | 2.2 | 1.8 | − | 4.7 | 3 |
| 5 | − | − | 2.0a | 1.7 | − | − | 3.1 | 2 |
| 6 | − | − | 1.4 | 2.0a | − | − | 6.1 | 2 |
| 7 | − | − | 2.1a | 2.3 | − | − | 4.4 | 2 |
| 8 | − | − | − | 2.6a | − | − | 3.9 | 1 |
| 9 | − | 2.2 | 2.7a | 1.8 | 3.0 | − | 11.3 | 4 |
| 10 | 1.5a | − | 2.1 | 2.1 | − | − | 4.3 | 3 |
| 11 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.4a | − | 5.8 | 5 |
| 12 | − | − | 1.5 | 1.7a | − | − | 8.1 | 2 |
| 13 | − | − | − | − | − | 1.7a | 2.5 | 1 |
| 14 | 1.7 | − | 2.6a | 2.2 | − | − | 11.1 | 3 |
| 15 | − | − | 2.3a | − | − | − | 8.1 | 1 |
| Average | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 6.3 | 2.3 |
TBR target-to-background ratio, AA abdominal aorta, IA iliac arteries, TA thoracic aorta, − negative
aRegion of the maximal wall thickness
Fig. 2Whole body distribution and positivity of vascular involvement. Fifteen patients exhibited vascular involvements in 35 regions
Fig. 3A 75-year-old man with involvement of the abdominal aorta (case #2). MIP image (a) showing multiple organ involvement, including hilar lymph node, abdominal aorta, and the left iliac artery (white arrows). FDG PET/CT fusion image (b) and CECT (c) exhibiting marked wall thickening of the abdominal aorta and abnormal FDG uptake (white arrow). Note the physiological uptakes in the bilateral urinary tract (black arrows)
Fig. 4Comparisons of the highest SUVmax values between regions with and without vascular involvement
Fig. 5Comparisons of TBR values between patient regions with and without vascular involvement