Nastassja Muller1,2, Romain Kessler3,4, Sophie Caillard5, Eric Epailly6, Fabrice Hubelé1,7, Céline Heimburger1, Izzie-Jacques Namer1,7, Raoul Herbrecht8, Cyrille Blondet1,7, Alessio Imperiale1,7. 1. Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, Hautepierre Hospital, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, Strasbourg, 67200 France. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Haguenau Hospital, 64, avenue Prof. Rene Leriche, BP 40252, Haguenau, 67504 France. 3. Pneumology, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 Place de l'hôpital, Strasbourg, 67000 France. 4. EA 7293 Vascular and Tissular Stress in Transplantation and FMTS, Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg, France. 5. Nephrology, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, Strasbourg, 67200 France. 6. Cardiology, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 Place de l'hôpital, Strasbourg, 67000 France. 7. ICube, University of Strasbourg/CNRS (UMR 7357) and FMTS, Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg, France. 8. Oncology and Hematology, Hautepierre Hospital, University Hospitals of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Molière, Strasbourg, 67200 France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Infection and malignancy represent two common complications after solid organ transplantation, which are often characterized by poorly specific clinical symptomatology. Herein, we have evaluated the role of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in this clinical setting. METHODS: Fifty-eight consecutive patients who underwent FDG PET/CT after kidney, lung or heart transplantation were included in this retrospective analysis. Twelve patients underwent FDG PET/CT to strengthen or confirm a diagnostic suspicion of malignancies. The remaining 46 patients presented with unexplained inflammatory syndrome, fever of unknown origin (FUO), CMV or EBV seroconversion during post-transplant follow-up without conclusive conventional imaging. FDG PET/CT results were compared to histology or to the finding obtained during a clinical/imaging follow-up period of at least 6 months after PET/CT study. RESULTS: Positive FDG PET/CT results were obtained in 18 (31 %) patients. In the remaining 40 (69 %) cases, FDG PET/CT was negative, showing exclusively a physiological radiotracer distribution. On the basis of a patient-based analysis, FDG PET/CT's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were respectively 78 %, 90 %, 78 % and 90 %, with a global accuracy of 86 %. FDG PET/CT was true positive in 14 patients with bacterial pneumonias (n = 4), pulmonary fungal infection (n = 1), histoplasmosis (n = 1), cutaneous abscess (n = 1), inflammatory disorder (sacroiliitis) (n = 1), lymphoma (n = 3) and NSCLC (n = 3). On the other hand, FDG PET/CT failed to detect lung bronchoalveolar adenocarcinoma, septicemia, endocarditis and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), respectively, in four patients. FDG PET/CT contributed to adjusting the patient therapeutic strategy in 40 % of cases. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT emerges as a valuable technique to manage complications in the post-transplantation period. FDG PET/CT should be considered in patients with severe unexplained inflammatory syndrome or FUO and inconclusive conventional imaging or to discriminate active from silent lesions previously detected by conventional imaging particularly when malignancy is suspected.
PURPOSE: Infection and malignancy represent two common complications after solid organ transplantation, which are often characterized by poorly specific clinical symptomatology. Herein, we have evaluated the role of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in this clinical setting. METHODS: Fifty-eight consecutive patients who underwent FDG PET/CT after kidney, lung or heart transplantation were included in this retrospective analysis. Twelve patients underwent FDG PET/CT to strengthen or confirm a diagnostic suspicion of malignancies. The remaining 46 patients presented with unexplained inflammatory syndrome, fever of unknown origin (FUO), CMV or EBV seroconversion during post-transplant follow-up without conclusive conventional imaging. FDG PET/CT results were compared to histology or to the finding obtained during a clinical/imaging follow-up period of at least 6 months after PET/CT study. RESULTS: Positive FDG PET/CT results were obtained in 18 (31 %) patients. In the remaining 40 (69 %) cases, FDG PET/CT was negative, showing exclusively a physiological radiotracer distribution. On the basis of a patient-based analysis, FDG PET/CT's sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were respectively 78 %, 90 %, 78 % and 90 %, with a global accuracy of 86 %. FDG PET/CT was true positive in 14 patients with bacterial pneumonias (n = 4), pulmonary fungal infection (n = 1), histoplasmosis (n = 1), cutaneous abscess (n = 1), inflammatory disorder (sacroiliitis) (n = 1), lymphoma (n = 3) and NSCLC (n = 3). On the other hand, FDG PET/CT failed to detect lung bronchoalveolar adenocarcinoma, septicemia, endocarditis and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), respectively, in four patients. FDG PET/CT contributed to adjusting the patient therapeutic strategy in 40 % of cases. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT emerges as a valuable technique to manage complications in the post-transplantation period. FDG PET/CT should be considered in patients with severe unexplained inflammatory syndrome or FUO and inconclusive conventional imaging or to discriminate active from silent lesions previously detected by conventional imaging particularly when malignancy is suspected.
Authors: Francois Jamar; John Buscombe; Arturo Chiti; Paul E Christian; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Ora Israel; Josep Martin-Comin; Alberto Signore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ekkehard Sturm; Edmond H H M Rings; Elisabeth H Schölvinck; Annette S H Gouw; Robert J Porte; Jan Pruim Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: Vera Graute; Nathalie Jansen; Hae-Young Sohn; Alexander Becker; Barbara Klein; Irene Schmid; Sabine Greil; Sebastian Lehner; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Pfluger; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: L Federici; C Blondet; A Imperiale; J Sibilia; J-L Pasquali; F Pflumio; B Goichot; G Blaison; J-C Weber; D Christmann; A Constantinesco; E Andrès Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: F Cornelis; M Silk; H Schoder; H Takaki; J C Durack; J P Erinjeri; C T Sofocleous; R H Siegelbaum; M Maybody; S B Solomon Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A P Douglas; K A Thursky; L J Worth; E Drummond; A Hogg; R J Hicks; M A Slavin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nika Guberina; Anja Gäckler; Johannes Grueneisen; Axel Wetter; Oliver Witzke; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler; Wolfgang Fendler; Lale Umutlu; Lino Morris Sawicki; Michael Forsting; Hana Rohn Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-07-02