These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The role of PET/CT in disease activity assessment in patients with large vessel vasculitis.
    Author: Galli E, Muratore F, Mancuso P, Boiardi L, Marvisi C, Besutti G, Spaggiari L, Casali M, Versari A, Giorgi Rossi P, Salvarani C.
    Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford); 2022 Nov 28; 61(12):4809-4816. PubMed ID: 35258570.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of PET/CT and of PET vascular activity score (PETVAS) in assessing disease activity and the ability of PETVAS in predicting relapses in a large single-centre cohort of patients with large vessel vasculitis (LVV). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients diagnosed with LVV who underwent at least one PET/CT scan between 2007 and 2020. The nuclear medicine physician's interpretation of each PET/CT scan (active/inactive vasculitis) was compared with disease activity clinical judgement (active disease/remission). For each PET/CT scan, the PETVAS score was calculated and its accuracy in assessing disease activity was evaluated. The ability of PETVAS in predicting subsequent relapses was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 100 consecutive LVV patients (51 large vessel GCA, 49 Takayasu arteritis) underwent a total of 476 PET/CT scans over a mean follow-up period of 97.5 months. Physician-determined PET/CT grading was able to distinguish between clinically active and inactive LVV with a sensitivity of 60% (95% CI 50.9, 68.7) and specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 75.5, 84.1); the area under the curve (AUC )was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65, 0.75). PETVAS was associated with disease activity, with an age and sex-adjusted odds ratio for active disease of 1.15 (95% CI 1.11, 1.19). A PETVAS ≥10 provided 60.8% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity in differentiating between clinically active and inactive LVV; the AUC was 0.73 (95% CI 0.68, 0.79). PETVAS was not associated with subsequent relapses, with an age and sex-adjusted hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI 0.97, 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: The visual PET/CT grading scale and PETVAS had moderate accuracy to distinguish active LVV from remission. PETVAS did not predict disease relapses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]