• Br J Radiol · Sep 2018

    Comparative Study

    Comparative effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET-CT and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of suspected large-vessel vasculitis.

    • Sriram Vaidyanathan, Arpita Chattopadhyay, Sarah L Mackie, and Andrew F Scarsbrook.
    • 1 Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, St James's University Hospital , Leeds , UK.
    • Br J Radiol. 2018 Sep 1; 91 (1089): 20180247.

    ObjectiveLarge-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.MethodsA 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.Results36 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).ConclusionFDG 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.