Sriram Vaidyanathan1, Arpita Chattopadhyay1, Sarah L Mackie2, Andrew F Scarsbrook1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St James's University Hospital , Leeds , UK. 2. 2 Leeds NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Institute for Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds , Leeds , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) is a serious illness with potentially life-threatening consequences. (18Fluorine) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) has emerged as a valuable diagnostic tool in suspected LVV, combining the strengths of functional and structural imaging. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of FDG PET-CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in the evaluation of patients with LVV. METHODS: A retrospective database review for LVV patients undergoing CECT and PET-CT between 2011 to 2016 yielded demographics, scan interval and vasculitis type. Qualitative and quantitative PET-CT analyses included aorta:liver FDG uptake, bespoke FDG uptake distribution scores and vascular maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax). Quantitative CECT data were assessed for wall thickness and mural-lumen ratio. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate comparative diagnostic accuracy and a correlational analysis was conducted between SUVmax and wall thickness. RESULTS: 36 adults (17 LVV, 19 controls) with a mean age (range) 63 (38-89) years, of which 17 (47%) were males were included. Time interval between CT and PET was mean [standard deviation (SD)] 1.9 (1.2) months. Both SUVmax and wall thickness demonstrated a significant difference between LVV and controls, with a mean difference [95%confidence interval (CI)] for SUVmax 1.6 (1.1, 2.0) and wall thickness 1.25 (0.68, 1.83) mm, respectively. These two parameters were significantly correlated (p < 0.0001, R = 0.62). The area under the curve (AUC) (95% CI) for SUVmax was 0.95 (0.88-1.00), and for mural thickening was 0.83 (0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION: FDG PET-CT demonstrated excellent accuracy whilst CECT mural thickening showed good accuracy in the diagnosis of LVV. Both parameters showed a highly significant correlation. In hospitals without access to FDG PET-CT or in patients unsuitable for PET-CT (e.g. uncontrolled diabetes) CECT offers a viable alternative for the assessment of LVV. Advances in knowledge: FDG PET-CT is a highly accurate test for the diagnosis of LVV. Aorta:liver SUVmax ratio is the most specific parameter for LVV. In hospitals without PET-CT or in unsuitable patients e.g. diabetics, CECT is a viable alternative.
OBJECTIVE: Large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) is a serious illness with potentially life-threatening consequences. (18Fluorine) fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET-CT) has emerged as a valuable diagnostic tool in suspected LVV, combining the strengths of functional and structural imaging. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of FDG PET-CT and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in the evaluation of patients with LVV. METHODS: A retrospective database review for LVV patients undergoing CECT and PET-CT between 2011 to 2016 yielded demographics, scan interval and vasculitis type. Qualitative and quantitative PET-CT analyses included aorta:liver FDG uptake, bespoke FDG uptake distribution scores and vascular maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax). Quantitative CECT data were assessed for wall thickness and mural-lumen ratio. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate comparative diagnostic accuracy and a correlational analysis was conducted between SUVmax and wall thickness. RESULTS: 36 adults (17 LVV, 19 controls) with a mean age (range) 63 (38-89) years, of which 17 (47%) were males were included. Time interval between CT and PET was mean [standard deviation (SD)] 1.9 (1.2) months. Both SUVmax and wall thickness demonstrated a significant difference between LVV and controls, with a mean difference [95%confidence interval (CI)] for SUVmax 1.6 (1.1, 2.0) and wall thickness 1.25 (0.68, 1.83) mm, respectively. These two parameters were significantly correlated (p < 0.0001, R = 0.62). The area under the curve (AUC) (95% CI) for SUVmax was 0.95 (0.88-1.00), and for mural thickening was 0.83 (0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION:FDG PET-CT demonstrated excellent accuracy whilst CECT mural thickening showed good accuracy in the diagnosis of LVV. Both parameters showed a highly significant correlation. In hospitals without access to FDG PET-CT or in patients unsuitable for PET-CT (e.g. uncontrolled diabetes) CECT offers a viable alternative for the assessment of LVV. Advances in knowledge: FDG PET-CT is a highly accurate test for the diagnosis of LVV. Aorta:liver SUVmax ratio is the most specific parameter for LVV. In hospitals without PET-CT or in unsuitable patients e.g. diabetics, CECT is a viable alternative.
Authors: Martin Fuchs; Matthias Briel; Thomas Daikeler; Ulrich A Walker; Helmut Rasch; Scott Berg; Quinn K T Ng; Heike Raatz; David Jayne; Ina Kötter; Daniel Blockmans; Maria C Cid; Sergio Prieto-González; Peter Lamprecht; Carlo Salvarani; Zaharenia Karageorgaki; Richard Watts; Raashid Luqmani; Jan Müller-Brand; Alan Tyndall; Martin A Walter Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hubert de Boysson; Anael Dumont; Eric Liozon; Marc Lambert; Jonathan Boutemy; Gwénola Maigné; Nicolas Martin Silva; Audrey Sultan; Kim Heang Ly; Nicolas Aide; Alain Manrique; Boris Bienvenu; Achille Aouba Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Olivier Gheysens; Mark Lubberink; Tanja Kero; Marc R Dweck; Gilbert Habib; Oliver Gaemperli; Antti Saraste; Alessia Gimelli; Panagiotis Georgoulias; Hein J Verberne; Jan Bucerius; Christoph Rischpler; Fabien Hyafil; Paola A Erba Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Olivier Gheysens; Mark Lubberink; Tanja Kero; Marc R Dweck; Gilbert Habib; Oliver Gaemperli; Antti Saraste; Alessia Gimelli; Panagiotis Georgoulias; Hein J Verberne; Jan Bucerius; Christoph Rischpler; Fabien Hyafil; Paola A Erba Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Olivier Gheysens; François Jamar; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Halil Yildiz; Kornelis S M van der Geest Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-14