Giant-cell arteritis: concordance study between aortic CT angiography and FDG-PET/CT in detection of large-vessel involvement
The purpose of our study was to assess the concordance of aortic CT angiography (CTA) and FDG-PET/CT in the detection of large-vessel involvement at diagnosis in patients with giant-cell arteritis (GCA).
We created a multicenter cohort of patients with GCA diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, and who underwent both FDG-PET/CT and aortic CTA before or in the first ten days following treatment introduction. Eight vascular segments were studied on each procedure. We calculated concordance between both imaging techniques in a per-patient and a per-segment analysis, using Cohen’s kappa concordance index.
We included 28 patients (21/7 women/men, median age 67 [56–82]). Nineteen patients had large-vessel involvement on PET/CT and 18 of these patients also presented positive findings on CTA. In a per-segment analysis, a median of 5 [1–7] and 3 [1–6] vascular territories were involved on positive PET/CT and CTA, respectively (p = 0.03). In qualitative analysis, i.e., positivity of the procedure suggesting a large-vessel involvement, the concordance rate between both procedures was 0.85 [0.64–1]. In quantitative analysis, i.e., per-segment analysis in both procedures, the global concordance rate was 0.64 [0.54–0.75]. Using FDG-PET/CT as a reference, CTA showed excellent sensitivity (95%) and specificity (100%) in a per-patient analysis. In a per-segment analysis, sensitivity and specificity were 61% and 97.9%, respectively.
CTA and FDG-PET/CT were both able to detect large-vessel involvement in GCA with comparable results in a per-patient analysis. However, PET/CT showed higher performance in a per-segment analysis, especially in the detection of inflammation of the aorta’s branches.
Keywords18FDG-pet/Ct CT angiography Giant-cell arteritis Large-vessel vasculitis
- 4.de Boysson H, Liozon E, Lambert M, Parienti JJ, Artigues N, Geffray L, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the risk of subsequent aortic complications in giant-cell arteritis: a multicenter cohort of 130 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e3851. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Prieto-Gonzalez S, Arguis P, Garcia-Martinez A, Espigol-Frigole G, Tavera-Bahillo I, Butjosa M, et al. Large vessel involvement in biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis: prospective study in 40 newly diagnosed patients using CT angiography. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1170–6. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Walter MA, Melzer RA, Schindler C, Muller-Brand J, Tyndall A, Nitzsche EU. The value of [18F]FDG-PET in the diagnosis of large-vessel vasculitis and the assessment of activity and extent of disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:674–81. doi:10.1007/s00259-004-1757-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Agard C, Barrier JH, Dupas B, Ponge T, Mahr A, Fradet G, et al. Aortic involvement in recent-onset giant cell (temporal) arteritis: a case-control prospective study using helical aortic computed tomodensitometric scan. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:670–6. doi:10.1002/art.23577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Prieto-Gonzalez S, Garcia-Martinez A, Tavera-Bahillo I, Hernandez-Rodriguez J, Gutierrez-Chacoff J, Alba MA, et al. Effect of glucocorticoid treatment on computed tomography angiography detected large-vessel inflammation in giant-cell arteritis. A prospective, longitudinal study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e486. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000000486.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Espitia O, Samson M, Le Gallou T, Connault J, Landron C, Lavigne C, et al. Comparison of idiopathic (isolated) aortitis and giant cell arteritis-related aortitis. A French retrospective multicenter study of 117 patients. Autoimmun Rev. 2016;15:571–6. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2016.02.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Daumas A, Rossi P, Bernard-Guervilly F, Frances Y, Berbis J, Durand JM, et al. Clinical, laboratory, radiological features, and outcome in 26 patients with aortic involvement amongst a case series of 63 patients with giant cell arteritis. Rev Med Interne. 2014;35:4–15. doi:10.1016/j.revmed.2013.06.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Forster S, Tato F, Weiss M, Czihal M, Rominger A, Bartenstein P, et al. Patterns of extracranial involvement in newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis assessed by physical examination, colour coded duplex sonography and FDG-PET. Vasa. 2011;40:219–27. doi:10.1024/0301-1526/a000096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Germano G, Macchioni P, Possemato N, Boiardi L, Nicolini A, Casali M, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the carotid artery in patients with large vessel Vasculitis: correlation with positron emission tomography findings. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69:143–9. doi:10.1002/acr.22906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar