Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC

Translated title of the contribution: Diagnosis of large-vessel vasculitis using [18F]-FDG PET-CT

U. Rozzanigo, A. Pellegrin, M. Centonze, G. Casagranda, M. Erini, D. Donner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET-CT) for diagnosing large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) for a subset of patients at increased risk of rheumatic/immune diseases, taking into account concurrent immunosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods: The study comprised 64 rheumatological referrals with suspected LVV; half of the patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at the time of examination. The final diagnosis of LVV was established in 31 patients. To evaluate vascular uptake, the nuclear medicine physician employed both a semiquantitative method based on standardised uptake value (SUV) determination and a qualitative method based on a visual score from 0 to 3 on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) reformats. Finally, a joint assessment was carried out between the nuclear medicine physician and the reporting radiologist, in which PET metabolic data were re-evaluated taking into account clinical data and baseline CT scans. McNemar's test was used to compare four types of analysis: semiquantitative (cutoff ≥2.4), qualitative with standard cutoff (grade ≥2), qualitative with reduced cutoff (grade ≥1) and joint. Results: Semiquantitative analysis (sensitivity 74.19%, specificity 78.78%, accuracy 76.56%) and qualitative analysis with standard cutoff (sensitivity 64.51%, specificity 84.84%, accuracy 75.00%) showed no statistical difference for the diagnosis of LVV, whereas qualitative analysis with lower cutoff (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 75.75%, accuracy 84.37%) proved to be better than the other two. Joint analysis (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 93.93%, accuracy 93.75%) introduced some corrective elements not present in the qualitative analysis with cutoff ≥1 and therefore increased specificity significantly. Conclusions: Interpretation of PET-CT should be individualised for each patient by taking into account clinical-radiological and metabolic data. To this end, cooperation between the nuclear medicine specialist and the radiologist is essential.

Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)633-647
Number of pages15
JournalRadiologia Medica
Volume118
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013

Fingerprint

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Vasculitis
Nuclear Medicine
Sensitivity and Specificity
Immunosuppressive Agents
Joints
Physicians
Immune System Diseases
Rheumatic Diseases
Blood Vessels
Referral and Consultation
Retrospective Studies
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Therapeutics
Radiologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Rozzanigo, U., Pellegrin, A., Centonze, M., Casagranda, G., Erini, M., & Donner, D. (2013). Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC. Radiologia Medica, 118(4), 633-647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z

Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC. / Rozzanigo, U.; Pellegrin, A.; Centonze, M.; Casagranda, G.; Erini, M.; Donner, D.

In: Radiologia Medica, Vol. 118, No. 4, 06.2013, p. 633-647.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rozzanigo, U, Pellegrin, A, Centonze, M, Casagranda, G, Erini, M & Donner, D 2013, 'Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC', Radiologia Medica, vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 633-647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z
Rozzanigo U, Pellegrin A, Centonze M, Casagranda G, Erini M, Donner D. Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC. Radiologia Medica. 2013 Jun;118(4):633-647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z
Rozzanigo, U. ; Pellegrin, A. ; Centonze, M. ; Casagranda, G. ; Erini, M. ; Donner, D. / Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC. In: Radiologia Medica. 2013 ; Vol. 118, No. 4. pp. 633-647.
@article{2c4c2d816c0c4dcfa43b48af68a37f4c,
title = "Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET-CT) for diagnosing large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) for a subset of patients at increased risk of rheumatic/immune diseases, taking into account concurrent immunosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods: The study comprised 64 rheumatological referrals with suspected LVV; half of the patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at the time of examination. The final diagnosis of LVV was established in 31 patients. To evaluate vascular uptake, the nuclear medicine physician employed both a semiquantitative method based on standardised uptake value (SUV) determination and a qualitative method based on a visual score from 0 to 3 on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) reformats. Finally, a joint assessment was carried out between the nuclear medicine physician and the reporting radiologist, in which PET metabolic data were re-evaluated taking into account clinical data and baseline CT scans. McNemar's test was used to compare four types of analysis: semiquantitative (cutoff ≥2.4), qualitative with standard cutoff (grade ≥2), qualitative with reduced cutoff (grade ≥1) and joint. Results: Semiquantitative analysis (sensitivity 74.19{\%}, specificity 78.78{\%}, accuracy 76.56{\%}) and qualitative analysis with standard cutoff (sensitivity 64.51{\%}, specificity 84.84{\%}, accuracy 75.00{\%}) showed no statistical difference for the diagnosis of LVV, whereas qualitative analysis with lower cutoff (sensitivity 93.54{\%}, specificity 75.75{\%}, accuracy 84.37{\%}) proved to be better than the other two. Joint analysis (sensitivity 93.54{\%}, specificity 93.93{\%}, accuracy 93.75{\%}) introduced some corrective elements not present in the qualitative analysis with cutoff ≥1 and therefore increased specificity significantly. Conclusions: Interpretation of PET-CT should be individualised for each patient by taking into account clinical-radiological and metabolic data. To this end, cooperation between the nuclear medicine specialist and the radiologist is essential.",
keywords = "[F]-FDG PET-CT, Aortitis, Giant cell arteritis, Large-vessel vasculitis, Takayasu's arteritis",
author = "U. Rozzanigo and A. Pellegrin and M. Centonze and G. Casagranda and M. Erini and D. Donner",
year = "2013",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z",
language = "Italian",
volume = "118",
pages = "633--647",
journal = "Radiologia Medica",
issn = "0033-8362",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag Italia s.r.l.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnosi di vasculite dei grandi vasi con 18F-FDG PET-TC

AU - Rozzanigo, U.

AU - Pellegrin, A.

AU - Centonze, M.

AU - Casagranda, G.

AU - Erini, M.

AU - Donner, D.

PY - 2013/6

Y1 - 2013/6

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET-CT) for diagnosing large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) for a subset of patients at increased risk of rheumatic/immune diseases, taking into account concurrent immunosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods: The study comprised 64 rheumatological referrals with suspected LVV; half of the patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at the time of examination. The final diagnosis of LVV was established in 31 patients. To evaluate vascular uptake, the nuclear medicine physician employed both a semiquantitative method based on standardised uptake value (SUV) determination and a qualitative method based on a visual score from 0 to 3 on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) reformats. Finally, a joint assessment was carried out between the nuclear medicine physician and the reporting radiologist, in which PET metabolic data were re-evaluated taking into account clinical data and baseline CT scans. McNemar's test was used to compare four types of analysis: semiquantitative (cutoff ≥2.4), qualitative with standard cutoff (grade ≥2), qualitative with reduced cutoff (grade ≥1) and joint. Results: Semiquantitative analysis (sensitivity 74.19%, specificity 78.78%, accuracy 76.56%) and qualitative analysis with standard cutoff (sensitivity 64.51%, specificity 84.84%, accuracy 75.00%) showed no statistical difference for the diagnosis of LVV, whereas qualitative analysis with lower cutoff (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 75.75%, accuracy 84.37%) proved to be better than the other two. Joint analysis (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 93.93%, accuracy 93.75%) introduced some corrective elements not present in the qualitative analysis with cutoff ≥1 and therefore increased specificity significantly. Conclusions: Interpretation of PET-CT should be individualised for each patient by taking into account clinical-radiological and metabolic data. To this end, cooperation between the nuclear medicine specialist and the radiologist is essential.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography ([18F]-FDG PET-CT) for diagnosing large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) for a subset of patients at increased risk of rheumatic/immune diseases, taking into account concurrent immunosuppressive therapy. Materials and methods: The study comprised 64 rheumatological referrals with suspected LVV; half of the patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at the time of examination. The final diagnosis of LVV was established in 31 patients. To evaluate vascular uptake, the nuclear medicine physician employed both a semiquantitative method based on standardised uptake value (SUV) determination and a qualitative method based on a visual score from 0 to 3 on the maximum intensity projection (MIP) reformats. Finally, a joint assessment was carried out between the nuclear medicine physician and the reporting radiologist, in which PET metabolic data were re-evaluated taking into account clinical data and baseline CT scans. McNemar's test was used to compare four types of analysis: semiquantitative (cutoff ≥2.4), qualitative with standard cutoff (grade ≥2), qualitative with reduced cutoff (grade ≥1) and joint. Results: Semiquantitative analysis (sensitivity 74.19%, specificity 78.78%, accuracy 76.56%) and qualitative analysis with standard cutoff (sensitivity 64.51%, specificity 84.84%, accuracy 75.00%) showed no statistical difference for the diagnosis of LVV, whereas qualitative analysis with lower cutoff (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 75.75%, accuracy 84.37%) proved to be better than the other two. Joint analysis (sensitivity 93.54%, specificity 93.93%, accuracy 93.75%) introduced some corrective elements not present in the qualitative analysis with cutoff ≥1 and therefore increased specificity significantly. Conclusions: Interpretation of PET-CT should be individualised for each patient by taking into account clinical-radiological and metabolic data. To this end, cooperation between the nuclear medicine specialist and the radiologist is essential.

KW - [F]-FDG PET-CT

KW - Aortitis

KW - Giant cell arteritis

KW - Large-vessel vasculitis

KW - Takayasu's arteritis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879418925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879418925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z

DO - 10.1007/s11547-012-0901-z

M3 - Articolo

VL - 118

SP - 633

EP - 647

JO - Radiologia Medica

JF - Radiologia Medica

SN - 0033-8362

IS - 4

ER -