Content area
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and perform a meta-analysis on the diagnostic performances of ^sup 18^F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) for giant cell arteritis (GCA), with or without polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR).
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles in English that evaluated FDG PET in GCA or PMR. All complete studies were reviewed and qualitatively analysed. Studies that fulfilled the three following criteria were included in a meta-analysis: (1) FDG PET used as a diagnostic tool for GCA and PMR; (2) American College of Rheumatology and Healey criteria used as the reference standard for the diagnosis of GCA and PMR, respectively; and (3) the use of a control group.
We found 14 complete articles. A smooth linear or long segmental pattern of FDG uptake in the aorta and its main branches seems to be a characteristic pattern of GCA. Vessel uptake that was superior to liver uptake was considered an efficient marker for vasculitis. The meta-analysis of six selected studies (101 vasculitis and 182 controls) provided the following results: sensitivity 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.91], specificity 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-0.94), positive predictive value 0.85 (95% CI 0.62-0.95), negative predictive value 0.88 (95% CI 0.72-0.95), positive likelihood ratio 6.73 (95% CI 3.55-12.77), negative likelihood ratio 0.25 (95% CI 0.13-0.46) and accuracy 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.90).
We found overall valuable diagnostic performances for FDG PET against reference criteria. Standardized FDG uptake criteria are needed to optimize these diagnostic performances.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772 DOI 10.1007/s00259-011-1830-0
REVIEW ARTICLE
Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in giant cell arteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Florent L. Besson & Jean-Jacques Parienti &
Boris Bienvenu & John O. Prior & Sylvie Costo &
Gerard Bouvard & Denis Agostini
Received: 31 December 2010 /Accepted: 12 April 2011 /Published online: 11 May 2011 # Springer-Verlag 2011
AbstractPurpose The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and perform a meta-analysis on the diagnostic performances of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) for giant cell arteritis (GCA), with or without polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR).
Methods MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles in English that evaluated FDG PET in GCA or PMR. All complete studies were reviewed and qualitatively analysed. Studies that fulfilled the three following criteria were included in a meta-analysis: (1)
FDG PET used as a diagnostic tool for GCA and PMR; (2) American College of Rheumatology and Healey criteria used as the reference standard for the diagnosis of GCA and PMR, respectively; and (3) the use of a control group. Results We found 14 complete articles. A smooth linear or long segmental pattern of FDG uptake in the aorta and its main branches seems to be a characteristic pattern of GCA. Vessel uptake that was superior to liver uptake was considered an efficient marker for vasculitis. The meta-analysis of six selected studies (101 vasculitis and 182 controls) provided the following results: sensitivity 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.630.91], specificity 0.89 (95% CI 0.780.94), positive predictive value 0.85 (95% CI 0.620.95), negative predictive value 0.88 (95% CI 0.720.95), positive likelihood ratio 6.73 (95% CI 3.5512.77), negative likelihood ratio 0.25 (95% CI0.130.46) and accuracy 0.84 (95% CI 0.760.90). Conclusion We found overall valuable diagnostic performances for FDG PET against reference criteria. Standardized FDG uptake criteria are needed to optimize these diagnostic performances.
Keywords PET. 18F-FDG . Giant cell arteritis . Polymyalgia rheumatica
Introduction
Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common form of vasculitis in Western countries. The incidence of 20 per 100,000 people older than 50 years of age (female to male ratio, 2:1) based on autopsy studies is probably an underestimation [1]. Initially described as temporal arteritis (Horton disease) [2], GCA is a segmental panarteritis that involves intracranial or extracranial vessels. The thoracic aorta and its main branches are involved in 45% of newly diagnosed
F. L. Besson : S. Costo : G. Bouvard Department of Nuclear Medicine, CHU Caen, Universit Caen Basse-Normandie,Caen, France
F. L. Bessone-mail: [email protected]
J.-J. ParientiDepartment of Biostatistics, CHU Caen, Universit Caen Basse-Normandie, Caen, France
B. BienvenuDepartment of Internal Medicine, CHU Caen, Universit Caen Basse-Normandie,Caen, France
J. O. PriorDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland
D. Agostini (*)
Department of Nuclear Medicine, EA 3212 (Coeur et Ischmie), CHU Caen, Universit Caen Basse-Normandie,Avenue de la Cte de Nacre,14033 Caen cedex 9, Francee-mail: [email protected]
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772 1765
patients [3]. At diagnosis, short-term prognosis is driven by ophthalmic complications that require urgent corticosteroid treatment to prevent the development of definitive blindness [46]. Long-term prognosis is determined by the presence of thoracic aortic aneurysms and stenosis [7, 8]. Polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) is a common painful rheumatological syndrome that is three times more frequent than GCA [912] and develops prior to, concurrently with or after GCA. In general, 1621% of PMR patients have GCA, and more than 50% of GCA cases present with PMR symptoms [11, 13 15]. The aetiology of both disorders remains unclear.
Due to the close relationship between these disorders and the common major histocompatibility complex profile, the scientific community now considers them as polygenic entities of a single general disease [16]. Nevertheless, the diagnostic criteria remain empirical and independent for both entities, which result in frequent misclassification with the risk of suboptimal therapy management [1719]. A temporal artery biopsy, which is the historical diagnostic gold standard for cranial GCA, provides high false-negative rates (1040%) [2024] and is unsuitable for the diagnosis of extracranial arteritis. Thus, the general American College of Rheumatology criteria (including temporal artery biopsy) are used as the reference standard in clinical practice [25]. Three of five positive criteria provide more than 90% sensitivity and specificity [25], but nonspecific symptoms, in up to 16% of cases, such as fever of unknown origin, remain a clinical issue [26, 27]. For PMR, the use of Healey diagnostic reference criteria [28] can lead to the misdiagnosis of subclinical GCA [17, 19]. The lack of an efficient adapted noninvasive diagnostic tool has promoted the use of imaging modalities.
Ultrasonography is cost-effective and very sensitive for the detection of cranial vasculitis (characteristic halo sign), but its inability to correctly evaluate thoracic arteries and its high operator dependency has limited its role in extracranial cases [29, 30]. MRI provides high-resolution images of anatomical vessel walls. Increased wall thickness, oedema and mural contrast enhancement suggest nonspecific vessel wall inflammation [31]. Although useful to detect temporal arteritis [30], MRI needs further evaluation before it can be routinely used to determine extracranial GCA.
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) is widely used in oncology. Its application in vasculitis was first described by Blockmans et al. in 1999 [32]. Since 2000, several studies have evaluated its utility to detect vessel wall inflammation in arteritis; this has influenced the re-evaluation of PMR as a particular form of GCA. The aim of this study was to (1) collect the data from the literature and (2) perform a meta-analysis of the performances of FDG PET to detect GCA, overlapped or not with PMR.
Materials and methods
Database search
MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles written in English, up to November 2011, that addressed FDG PET as a diagnostic tool used in cases of GCA or PMR. We used the MeSH query giant cell arteritis or polymyalgia rheumatica and positron emission tomography. An initial selection was based on the exclusion of abstracts and case reports because they failed to provide sufficient data for analysis. A second step consisted of selecting original complete studies with a consistent number of patients (superior or equal to eight). To assess the diagnostic performance of FDG PET, comparable studies that fulfilled all three of the following criteria were included in the meta-analysis: (1) FDG PET used as a diagnostic tool to determine GCA or PMR; (2) American College of Rheumatology and Healey criteria used as a reference standard for the diagnosis of GCA and PMR, respectively; and (3) the use of a control group.
Methodological assessment
For original articles, FDG interpretation criteria, uptake pattern, topography and the influence of biological markers [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)] were analysed. Based on this qualitative review, meta-analysis was performed of comparable studies that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers evaluated the methodology of the selected studies, using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) [33, 34]. The evaluation was based on a 14-point scale (spectrum composition, selection criteria, reference standard, disease progression bias, partial verification, differential verification, incorporation bias, index test execution, reference standard execution, test review bias, reference standard review bias, clinical review bias, non-interpretable test results and explanation for withdrawal). A study with a score below 7 was considered to be of low quality, one with a score of 710 was considered to be of good quality and one with a score of 1014 was considered to be of high quality. Reviewers, who were blinded to the purposes of the meta-analysis, recorded a score of 1 for yes and 0 for no for each of the 14 points on the scale, according to the QUADAS detail list. All disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Data extraction and statistical analysis
For the meta-analysis, the number of true-positives (TP), true-negatives (TN), false-positives (FP) and false-
1766 Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772
negatives (FN) were extracted or computed from each selected study based on the FDG PET as the index test, and the American College of Rheumatology or the Healey criteria as the reference diagnosis test. Then, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), likelihood ratio and accuracy were calculated. The between-studies heterogeneity was assessed using the tau-squared and I-squared tests. The tau-squared test provided an estimate of the between-study variance, and the I-squared test quantified the extent of the heterogeneity (i.e. the percentage of total variation due to between-study variances). Instead of simple assessment being based on the inverse of the within-study variance, the weight was calculated using the inverse of the sum of the within-study and between-study variance estimates. To integrate the tau-squared weights, which accounted for between-study heterogeneities, we used a random-effects model. All statistical analyses were performed using MetaAnalyst (Beta 3.13) [35].
Results
A total of 101 citations were found using the database searches. Thirteen complete and eligible studies were identified during the primary screening. We then extracted one additional full-text article through screening the studies and their references [36]. We first performed a qualitative analysis of the 14 complete articles and only included controlled studies in the meta-analysis to assess the performance of FDG PET to diagnose GCA with or without PMR (Fig. 1).
Qualitative analysis: systematic review
Using the database search, 14 complete articles written over the past 10 years were found, including 12 prospective and 2 retrospective studies (Table 1).
Seven studies used exclusively qualitative FDG uptake criteria to diagnose vasculitis [32, 3641]. Blockmans et al.s paper proposed a visual score interpretation that ranged from
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the review process
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772 1767
Table 1 FDG PET as a diagnostic tool in GCA and PMR: systematic review
Author (reference) Year Design Technique FDG diagnostic criteria Vasculitis
Blockmans et al. [32] 1999 Prospective PET Qualitative 11 Blockmans et al. [37] 2000 Prospective PET Qualitative 25 Meller et al. [38] 2003 Prospective PET & PET/CT Qualitative 15 Bleeker-Rovers et al. [39] 2003 Retrospective PET Qualitative 14 Moosig et al. [17] 2004 Prospective PET Qualitativea 13
Brodmann et al. [46] 2004 Prospective PET Not specified 22 Scheel et al. [36] 2004 Prospective PET & PET/CT Qualitative 8 Walter et al. [40] 2005 Prospective PET Qualitative 26
Blockmans et al. [44] 2006 Prospective PET Semi-quantitative 35 Blockmans et al. [18] 2007 Prospective PET Semi-quantitative 35 Henes et al. [42] 2008 Prospective PET/CT Qualitativea 13
Hautzel et al. [45] 2008 Prospective PET Semi-quantitative 18 Both et al. [41] 2008 Prospective PET Qualitative 25 Lehmann et al. [43] 2011 Retrospective PET Qualitativea 20
a FDG PET diagnostics were assessed by visual analysis and evaluated, secondarily, semi-quantitatively
0 (no uptake) to 3 (high uptake), using a score of 23 as positive [32, 37]. Both et al.s study used this visual score without specifying a positive threshold [41]. Although first proposed by Meller et al. in 2003 [38], three other studies used a 4-point graded visual scale, based on the vessel to liver ratio. Based on this scale, 0 was defined as no uptake, 1 was defined as uptake less than that of the liver, 2 was defined as equal to liver uptake and 3 was defined as greater than liver uptake [36, 38, 40]. Two of these four studies concluded that grade 23 for the thoracic aorta, and a grade above 1 in other vascular regions, were positive criteria for vasculitis [38, 40]. One study described the vascular involvement of the thoracic aorta as intense for all vasculitides, without specifying the grade [36]. Bleeker-Rovers et al. based their interpretation exclusively on the topography (focal non-physiological accumulations of FDG as a positive criterion for vasculitis) [39].
Basing the diagnosis on visual uptake criteria, three other studies also performed secondary semi-quantitative analyses on vascular uptake [17, 42, 43]. In a prospective controlled study, Moosig et al. observed moderate to high vasculitis uptake in 12 of 13 polymyalgic patients. They found a mean semi-quantitative vessel to lung SUVmax
ratio of 1.580.37 [17]. Henes et al. found a mean maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of 3.4 for
all vasculitis cases (3.9 without corticosteroid treatment) [42]. Using receiver-operating characteristic analysis, Lehmann and coworkers retrospectively found an optimal sensitivity for the SUVmax cutoff point of 1.78 (90 vs 65%
with visual assessment), though the corresponding specificity was decreased (45 vs 80% with visual assessment) [43].
Three studies evaluated semi-quantitative vessel uptake exclusively [18, 44, 45]. Hautzel et al. introduced a semi-quantitative aorta to liver SUVmax ratio in 18 GCA cases and 54 age- and sex-matched controls in a prospective study. Using receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the authors found optimal FDG PET overall performances for a cutoff ratio of 1.0 as a positive criterion for vasculitis [45]. Blockmans et al. developed a composite score for vascular uptake (total vascular score, TVS) in two non-controlled prospective studies that included 35 GCA cases with or without PMR [44], and 35 isolated cases of PMR [18]. For each patient, the TVS integrated vascular uptake (1, no uptake; 2, moderate uptake; and 3, high uptake) was found for seven predefined vascular regions (thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, subclavian arteries, axillary arteries, carotid arteries, iliac arteries and femoral arteries). This method resulted in a score that ranged from 0 to 21. They found a mean TVS of 60.2 at the time of diagnosis in 29 of 35 patients. This value was independent of the combined GCAPMR condition [44]. They also found a mean TVS of 0.81.7 in 31% of isolated PMR cases [18].
The main FDG PET-positive vascular territories observed
in GCA included the thoracic aorta, the aortic arch [18, 32, 38, 4042, 44], the supra-aortic trunks, including the subclavian [17, 18, 32, 37, 38, 43, 44], and the carotid arteries [17, 38, 40]. Several studies have reported FDG uptake in the abdominal aorta [18, 38, 40, 42, 44] and the iliofemoral arteries [18, 38].
Brodmann et al. focused their analysis on the temporal arteries in a prospective study that included 22 GCA cases. All localized temporal arteritis cases that were positive, based on ultrasonography, were negative based on FDG
1768 Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772
PET. The authors concluded that FDG PETwas not capable of diagnosing temporal arteritis due to the small diameter of the arteries and their proximity to the brain [46]. Blockmans et al. described a bilateral, symmetric, smooth and linear uptake pattern [32, 37], and semi-quantitatively confirmed their observations using TVS scores [44]. In terms of PMR, the authors observed a significant increase in FDG uptake in the shoulders, hips and vertebral spinous processes of GCAPMR patients [18], and shoulder uptake correlated well with rheumatological symptoms (p=0.005).
Of the 14 studies, 6 evaluated the relationship between FDG uptake at diagnosis and serological marker levels [17, 37, 4042, 44]. Four studies found no correlation between the intensity of FDG uptake or disease activity and the levels of either ESR or CRP [37, 41, 42, 44]. With high ESRmean and CRPmean values (84 ml/h and 106 mg/l,
respectively), Moosig et al. found a significant correlation between both ESR or CRP levels and FDG vessel uptakes (r=0.79, p<0.0001 and r=0.68, p<0.001, respectively) [17]. Despite moderate biological inflammation (ESRmean=
35 ml/h and CRPmean=27.4 mg/l) with a mean sensitivity of
57%, Walter et al. [40] found a significant correlation with the grade of uptake (ESR, p=0.08; CRP, p=0.002) and showed, through logistic regression, increased sensitivity of up to 90% for CRP levels superior to 160 mg/l.
Quantitative analysis: meta-analysis
Of the 14 complete studies, only 8 fulfilled all 3 inclusion criteria. Two studies were excluded because of the absence of a well-defined control design [32, 37]. Thus, we finally included six studies in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). Based on the QUADAS criteria, three of the six studies were determined to be of high quality [38, 40, 43], two were determined to be of good quality [17, 45] and one was at the limit of good quality with a score of 7/14 [42] (Table 2). Pooled data included 81 GCA cases with or without PMR
symptoms, 10 clinical PMR cases that fulfilled Healey criteria with subclinical GCA, as detected by FDG PET, and 182 controls. Positive temporal artery biopsies were noted in 17 of the 91 GCA-PMR cases included (19%). Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted from each selected study (Table 3). In Hautzel et al.s study [45], data were computed from results provided by the authors (sensitivity, specificity and PPV based on an optimal aorta to liver ratio of 1.00), as follows: TP=sensitivity (TP+ FN), (TP+FN) representing the total number of true GCAs; TN=specificity (TN+FP), (TN+FP) representing the total number of controls; FP=[TP (1-PPV)]/PPV; and FN=total patients (TP+TN+FP). In Meller et al.s and
Walter et al.s studies, the same visual grading score was used [38, 40]. However, in Meller et al.s study, the results between vasculitis and the controls were highly overlapped due to a lack of specificity, as pointed out by Hautzel et al. [45]. Furthermore, both studies proposed different positive grades depending on the localization of uptake. To homogenize quantitative data, and based on the results provided by Hautzel [45], we considered grade 2 (vascular uptake equal or superior to liver uptake) as a positive uptake criterion for vasculitis in both Meller et al.s [38] and Walter et al.s [40] studies, independent of vascular localization. In Moosig et al.s study [17], 13 cases of vasculitis were mentioned, but only 12 FDG PETs were performed. Consequently, 12 vasculitis cases and 14 controls were evaluated. Data from the two other studies did not present any ambiguity [42, 43].
FDG PET sensitivities ranged from 57 to 96% [17, 38], but only two of the six studies showed sensitivities under 85% (Fig. 2a) [40, 43]. All of the studies, except two, showed greater than 94% specificity (Fig. 2b) [38, 43]. FDG PET, compared to the reference clinical criteria, provided the following pooled performances: sensitivity0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.630.91], specificity0.89 (95% CI 0.780.94), PPV 0.85 (95% CI 0.620.95),
Table 2 QUADAS scores of the six controlled studies included in the meta-analysis
Study (reference) Itemsa Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Meller et al. [38] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14 Moosig et al. [17] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 12
Walter et al. [40] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14 Henes et al. [42] Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes 7 Hautzel et al. [45] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 12 Lehmann et al. [43] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14
a 1 spectrum composition, 2 selection criteria, 3 reference standard, 4 disease progression bias, 5 partial verification, 6 differential verification, 7 incorporation bias, 8 index test execution, 9 reference standard execution, 10 test review bias, 11 reference standard review bias, 12 clinical review bias, 13 uninterpretable test results, 14 explanation for withdrawal
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772 1769
Table 3 Characteristics of the six controlled studies included in the meta-analysis
Author (reference)
Year Design Technique FDG diagnostic criteriaa Treatmentb Patient characteristicsc Quantitative data
Vasculitis Controls
Age Sex ratio
Age Sex ratio
TP FN TN FP n
Meller et al. [38] 2003 Prospective PET &
PET/CT
Visual grading scale No 62 1.5 55 0.73 11 4 78 0 93
Moosig et al. [17] 2004 Prospective PET Visual uptake pattern No 64 5 65 0.75 12 0 14 0 26 Walter et al. [40] 2005 Prospective PET Visual grading scale Yes (65%) 71 4.2 71 4.2 15 11 26 0 52 Henes et al. [42] 2008 Prospective PET/CT Visual uptake pattern Yes (70%) 65 4 57 3 9 1 8 0 18 Hautzel et al. [45] 2008 Prospective PET Aorta/liver SUVmax ratio No 64 5 64 5 16 2 34 2 54
Lehmann et al. [43] 2011 Retrospective PET Visual uptake pattern Yes (40%) 62 4 61 4 13 7 16 4 40
TP true-positive, FN false-negative, TN true-negative, FP false-positive, n total patients evaluated by PET or PET/CT
a Moosig: vessel/lung SUVmax secondary analysis, Henes and Lehmann: SUVmax secondary analysis
b Treatment at baseline PET or PET/CT, % of vasculitis undergoing corticosteroid treatment in parentheses
c Ages are reported as mean age; sex ratio is calculated as the female to male ratio
NPV 0.88 (95% CI 0.720.95), positive likelihood ratio 6.73 (95% CI 3.5512.77), negative likelihood ratio 0.25 (95% CI0.130.46) and accuracy 0.84 (95% CI 0.760.90) (Table 4). I-squared results were statistically significant (p<0.05) for all values except specificity, accuracy and likelihood ratios, justifying the use of a random-effects model.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to evaluate global FDG PET diagnostic performance in cases of GCA.
The temporal artery biopsy criterion was mentioned as positive in 19% of the GCA-PMR cases for which meta-analysis was conducted. Based on these results, we consider FDG PET as a promising tool for the diagnostic assessment of GCA, particularly for extracranial GCA.
Our quantitative findings were consistently heterogeneous and could be explained in several ways. The methodological assessment of FDG uptake was not consistent across the studies. The vessel to liver visual grading score proposed by Meller et al. [38] provided high sensitivity (93%), but this reproducible visual evaluation lacks specificity, as does the SUVmax cutoff point proposed recently by Lehmann et al.
[43]. However, the semi-quantitative aorta to liver ratio, proposed by Hautzel et al., provides optimal global performance and demonstrates robustness as an observer-independent method [45]. Another semi-quantitative vessel to lung ratio, proposed by Moosig et al., also provides good overall performance. Nevertheless, these authors initially based their diagnosis on a visual vessel uptake pattern and secondarily refined it to the qualitative criteria using semi-
quantitative analysis [17]. A visual smooth linear or long segmental uptake pattern appears typical and should be considered as an important FDG PET criterion. Semi-quantitative analysis could improve overall performances and homogenize inter-observer interpretation. In this way, the aorta to liver or vessel to lung SUVmax ratios proposed by
Hautzel et al. and Moosig et al. provided the most powerful results [17, 45].
Serological marker levels influenced by corticoid treatment could also explain part of the heterogeneity. As illustrated in Walter et al.s study, high ESR and CRP levels significantly improved the sensitivity of FDG PET by forming a significant correlation between the grade of uptake and inflammation levels [40]. However, Walter et al.s hypothesis contradicts that of Henes and coworkers, who had relatively similar treatment conditions (65 vs 70% of vasculitis cases were receiving corticoids, ESRmean=35 vs 51 ml/h, CRPmean=
27.4 vs 38 mg/l, respectively) [42], and that of two of Blockmans et al.s studies for which meta-analysis was not performed [37, 44]. A decrease in FDG uptake under treatment has been described during follow-up [17, 36, 38, 40], but disease activity or risk of relapse does not seem to be correlated with FDG or biological findings under therapy [18, 41, 44]. In comparison, biological findings are not consistent with disease activity in Takayasu arteritis [4749]. In the absence of standardized FDG PET interpretation criteria, the relationship between FDG uptake and serological inflammation levels remains ambiguous and should be interpreted with caution, especially in patients receiving corticoids.
Concerning index test modality, two of the six studies assessed by meta-analysis evaluated 18/101 vasculitis cases with PET/CT [38, 42]. Of potential interest could be the
1770 Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772
Fig. 2 a Forest plot of FDG PET sensitivity compared to the clinical reference standard. N total number of patients evaluated by PET or PET/CT.b Forest plot of FDG PET specificity compared to the clinical reference standard. N total number of patients evaluated by PET or PET/CT
Table 4 Pooled results: meta-analysis of the six controlled studies
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, LR likelihood ratio
a Estimate of the between-study variance
b Quantifies the extent of heterogeneity (i.e. the percentage of total variation due to between-study variances)
Pooled performances Value 95% confidence interval Tau-squareda I-squaredb
Lower Upper
Sensitivity 0.80 0.63 0.91 0.61 66% Specificity 0.89 0.78 0.94 0.31 50% PPV 0.85 0.62 0.95 1.403 77% NPV 0.88 0.72 0.95 1.026 77% Accuracy 0.84 0.76 0.90 0.21 63% Positive LR 6.73 3.55 12.77 0.19 46% Negative LR 0.25 0.13 0.46 0.25 60%
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772 1771
differentiation between vasculitis and atherosclerosis (such as calcification in the arterial wall in addition to focal, slight and moderate FDG uptake [50, 51]), or the detection of complications, such as stenoses or aneurysms from a single examination [42]; however, the potential added value of CT needs to be confirmed in further studies. The baseline differences among the patients in the studies may have contributed to the observed heterogeneity of the results too. However, such variability was accounted for in a random-effects model.
We tried not to include Takayasu arteritis in our analysis. Categorized as large-vessel vasculitis, GCA and Takayasu arteritis are two independent distinct diseases. Despite apparent similar FDG distributions, their pathophysiologies, evolution and prognoses are not comparable, nor are their respective population targets (age at diagnosis and sex ratio). Pooling both diseases to evaluate FDG PET diagnostic performances has limited clinical consistency. Focusing on the vascular component of GCA-PMR disease, we have tried to optimize the small number of studies amenable to meta-analysis while preserving the clinical coherence of FDG PET in GCA. We could exclude several Takayasu arteritis cases from the analysis [42], but ten Takayasu cases divided between three studies could not be separated out from the available data [38, 40, 43]. Our quantitative analysis included a total of 101 vasculitis cases (81 GCAs, with or without PMR symptoms, 10 clinical PMRs, with subclinical arteritis, 10 Takayasu cases) and 182 controls. For more clinical consistency, further studies should limit this population bias.
Subclinical GCA cases that do not fulfil the American College of Rheumatology criteria, but do meet the Healey criteria, remain a clinical issue due to the suboptimal nature of the actual reference standards used. Frequent resultant mis-classification may suggest inappropriate management of patients and justifies the inclusion of PMR in our meta-analysis [1619]. The increased interest in FDG PET in GCA and PMR cases may contribute to redefining the actual diagnostic criteria.
In conclusion, FDG PET to detect extracranial GCA should be performed in patients with a negative temporal artery biopsy, isolated clinical PMR symptoms or atypical cases that do not fulfil the reference criteria. Our review highlights the need for standardized FDG diagnostic criteria to optimize the results.
Conflicts of interest None.
References
1. Ostberg G. An arteritis with special reference to polymyalgia arteritica. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand Suppl 1973;237 Suppl 237:159.
2. Hutchinson J. II. On a peculiar form of fibrous tumor, which tends to multiplicity and indefinite growth. Ann Surg 1885;1(5):4236.
3. Schmidt WA, Seifert A, Gromnica-Ihle E, Krause A, Natusch A. Ultrasound of proximal upper extremity arteries to increase the diagnostic yield in large-vessel giant cell arteritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(1):96101. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kem322
Web End =10.1093/rheumatology/kem322 .
4. Aiello PD, Trautmann JC, McPhee TJ, Kunselman AR, Hunder GG. Visual prognosis in giant cell arteritis. Ophthalmology 1993;100(4):5505.
5. Gonzlez-Gay MA, Garca-Porra C, Llorca J, Hajeer AH, Braas F, Dababneh A. Visual manifestations of giant cell arteritis. Trends and clinical spectrum in 161 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2000;79(5):28392.
6. Salvarani C, Cimino L, Macchioni P, Consonni D, Cantini F, Bajocchi G, et al. Risk factors for visual loss in an Italian population-based cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53(2):2937. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.21075
Web End =10.1002/art.21075 .
7. Evans JM, OFallon WM, Hunder GG. Increased incidence of aortic aneurysm and dissection in giant cell (temporal) arteritis. A population-based study. Ann Intern Med 1995;122(7):5027.
8. Nuenninghoff DM, Hunder GG, Christianson TJ, McClelland RL, Matteson EL. Incidence and predictors of large-artery complication (aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, and/or large-artery stenosis) in patients with giant cell arteritis: a population-based study over 50 years. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48(12):352231. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.11353
Web End =10.1002/art.11353 .
9. Boesen P, Srensen SF. Giant cell arteritis, temporal arteritis, and polymyalgia rheumatica in a Danish county. A prospective investigation, 19821985. Arthritis Rheum 1987;30(3):2949.
10. Schaufelberger C, Bengtsson BA, Andersson R. Epidemiology and mortality in 220 patients with polymyalgia rheumatica. Br J Rheumatol 1995;34(3):2614.
11. Salvarani C, Gabriel SE, OFallon WM, Hunder GG. Epidemiology of polymyalgia rheumatica in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1970 1991. Arthritis Rheum 1995;38(3):36973.
12. Elling P, Olsson AT, Elling H. Synchronous variations of the incidence of temporal arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica in different regions of Denmark; association with epidemics of Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection. J Rheumatol 1996;23(1):1129.13. Salvarani C, Gabriel SE, OFallon WM, Hunder GG. The incidence of giant cell arteritis in Olmsted County, Minnesota: apparent fluctuations in a cyclic pattern. Ann Intern Med 1995;123(3):1924.
14. Franzen P, Sutinen S, von Knorring J. Giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica in a region of Finland: an epidemiologic, clinical and pathologic study, 19841988. J Rheumatol 1992;19(2):2736.15. Gonzalez-Gay MA. Giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: two different but often overlapping conditions. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2004;33(5):28993.
16. Weyand CM, Goronzy JJ. Giant-cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(6):50515.
17. Moosig F, Czech N, Mehl C, Henze E, Zeuner RA, Kneba M, et al. Correlation between 18-fluorodeoxyglucose accumulation in large vessels and serological markers of inflammation in polymyalgia rheumatica: a quantitative PET study. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63(7):8703. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.01169263/7/870
Web End =10.1136/ard.2003.01169263/7/870 .
18. Blockmans D, De Ceuninck L, Vanderschueren S, Knockaert D, Mortelmans L, Bobbaers H. Repetitive 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in isolated polymyalgia rheumatica: a prospective study in 35 patients. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46(4):6727. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel376
Web End =10.1093/rheumatology/kel376 .
19. Cimmino MA, Zampogna G, Parodi M. Is FDG-PET useful in the evaluation of steroid-resistant PMR patients? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(6):9267. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken098
Web End =10.1093/rheumatology/ken098 .
1772 Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2011) 38:17641772
20. Hauser WA, Ferguson RH, Holley KE, Kurland LT. Temporal arteritis in Rochester, Minnesota, 1951 to 1967. Mayo Clin Proc 1971;46(9):597602.
21. Hall S, Persellin S, Lie JT, OBrien PC, Kurland LT, Hunder GG. The therapeutic impact of temporal artery biopsy. Lancet 1983;2 (8361):121720.
22. Roth AM, Milsow L, Keltner JL. The ultimate diagnoses of patients undergoing temporal artery biopsies. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102(6):9013.
23. Salvarani C, Macchioni P, Zizzi F, Mantovani W, Rossi F, Castri C, et al. Epidemiologic and immunogenetic aspects of polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis in northern Italy. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34(3):3516.
24. Gonzalez-Gay MA, Garcia-Porrua C, Llorca J, Gonzalez-Louzao C, Rodriguez-Ledo P. Biopsy-negative giant cell arteritis: clinical spectrum and predictive factors for positive temporal artery biopsy. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2001;30(4):24956. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/sarh.2001.16650
Web End =10.1053/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/sarh.2001.16650
Web End =sarh.2001.16650 .
25. Hunder GG, Bloch DA, Michel BA, Stevens MB, Arend WP, Calabrese LH, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33(8):11228.
26. Calamia KT, Hunder GG. Giant cell arteritis (temporal arteritis) presenting as fever of undetermined origin. Arthritis Rheum 1981;24(11):14148.
27. Salvarani C, Cantini F, Hunder GG. Polymyalgia rheumatica and giant-cell arteritis. Lancet 2008;372(9634):23445. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61077-6
Web End =10.1016/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61077-6
Web End =S0140-6736(08)61077-6 .
28. Healey LA. Long-term follow-up of polymyalgia rheumatica: evidence for synovitis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1984;13(4):3228.
29. Karassa FB, Matsagas MI, Schmidt WA, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis: test performance of ultrasonography for giant-cell arteritis. Ann Intern Med 2005;142(5):35969. doi:http://dx.doi.org/142/5/359
Web End =142/5/359 .
30. Blockmans D, Bley T, Schmidt W. Imaging for large-vessel vasculitis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009;21(1):1928. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e32831cec7b
Web End =10.1097/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e32831cec7b
Web End =BOR.0b013e32831cec7b .
31. Narvez J, Narvez JA, Nolla JM, Sirvent E, Reina D, Valverde J. Giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: usefulness of vascular magnetic resonance imaging studies in the diagnosis of aortitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44(4):47983. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh513
Web End =10.1093/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh513
Web End =rheumatology/keh513 .
32. Blockmans D, Maes A, Stroobants S, Nuyts J, Bormans G, Knockaert D, et al. New arguments for a vasculitic nature of polymyalgia rheumatica using positron emission tomography. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999;38(5):4447.
33. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
Web End =10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 .
34. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-9
Web End =10.1186/1471-2288-6-9 .
35. Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009;9:80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-80
Web End =10.1186/1471-2288-9-80 .
36. Scheel AK, Meller J, Vosshenrich R, Kohlhoff E, Siefker U, Mller GA, et al. Diagnosis and follow up of aortitis in the elderly. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63(11):150710. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2003.015651
Web End =10.1136/ard.2003.015651 .
37. Blockmans D, Stroobants S, Maes A, Mortelmans L. Positron emission tomography in giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia
rheumatica: evidence for inflammation of the aortic arch. Am J Med 2000;108(3):2469.38. Meller J, Strutz F, Siefker U, Scheel A, Sahlmann CO, Lehmann K, et al. Early diagnosis and follow-up of aortitis with [(18)F] FDG PET and MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(5):7306. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1144-y
Web End =10.1007/s00259-003-1144-y .39. Bleeker-Rovers CP, Bredie SJ, van der Meer JW, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in diagnosis and follow-up of patients with different types of vasculitis. Neth J Med 2003;61(10):3239.
40. Walter MA, Melzer RA, Schindler C, Mller-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(6):67481. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1757-9
Web End =10.1007/s00259-004-1757-9 .
41. Both M, Ahmadi-Simab K, Reuter M, Dourvos O, Fritzer E, Ullrich S, et al. MRI and FDG-PET in the assessment of inflammatory aortic arch syndrome in complicated courses of giant cell arteritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67(7):10303. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.082123
Web End =10.1136/ard.2007.082123 .
42. Henes JC, Mller M, Krieger J, Balletshofer B, Pfannenberg AC, Kanz L, et al. [18F] FDG-PET/CT as a new and sensitive imaging method for the diagnosis of large vessel vasculitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008;26(3 Suppl 49):S4752.
43. Lehmann P, Buchtala S, Achajew N, Haerle P, Ehrenstein B, Lighvani H, et al. 18F-FDG PET as a diagnostic procedure in large vessel vasculitis-a controlled, blinded re-examination of routine PET scans. Clin Rheumatol 2011;30(1):3742. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-010-1598-9
Web End =10.1007/s10067-010-1598-9 .
44. Blockmans D, de Ceuninck L, Vanderschueren S, Knockaert D, Mortelmans L, Bobbaers H. Repetitive 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in giant cell arteritis: a prospective study of 35 patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55(1):1317. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.21699
Web End =10.1002/art.21699 .
45. Hautzel H, Sander O, Heinzel A, Schneider M, Mller HW. Assessment of large-vessel involvement in giant cell arteritis with 18F-FDG PET: introducing an ROC-analysis-based cutoff ratio. J Nucl Med 2008;49(7):110713. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.051920
Web End =10.2967/jnumed.108.051920 .
46. Brodmann M, Lipp RW, Passath A, Seinost G, Pabst E, Pilger E. The role of 2-18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis of the temporal arteries. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2004;43(2):2412. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh025keh025
Web End =10.1093/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh025keh025
Web End =rheumatology/keh025keh025 .
47. Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, Leavitt RY, Fauci AS, Rottem M, et al. Takayasu arteritis. Ann Intern Med 1994;120(11):91929.
48. Hoffman GS, Ahmed AE. Surrogate markers of disease activity in patients with Takayasu arteritis. A preliminary report from The International Network for the Study of the Systemic Vasculitides (INSSYS). Int J Cardiol 1998;66 Suppl 1:S1914. discussion S195.
49. Arnaud L, Haroche J, Malek Z, Archambaud F, Gambotti L, Grimon G, et al. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning a reliable way to assess disease activity in Takayasu arteritis? Arthritis Rheum 2009;60(4):1193200. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.24416
Web End =10.1002/art.24416 .
50. Belhocine T, Blockmans D, Hustinx R, Vandevivere J, MortelmansL. Imaging of large vessel vasculitis with (18)FDG PET: illusion or reality? A critical review of the literature data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(9):130513. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1209-y
Web End =10.1007/s00259-003-1209-y .51. Ben-Haim S, Kupzov E, Tamir A, Israel O. Evaluation of 18FFDG uptake and arterial wall calcifications using 18F-FDG PET/ CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45(11):181621.
Springer-Verlag 2011