Table 1.
Current state of scoring methods of 18F-FDG PET in giant cell arteritis.
| Author (year) | Study design | Patients | Controls | Technique | Method of analysis | Description | Standard of reference | Diagnostic performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blockmans et al. (1999) [25] | Prospective | 11 | 23 | PET | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | ACR criteria + TAB | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Blockmans et al. (2000) [26] | Prospective | 25 | 44 | PET | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | Clinical symptoms + TAB | Thoracic vessels Sensitivity: 56% Specificity: 98% PPV: 93% NPV: 80% Legs Sensitivity: 64% Specificity: 77% |
|
| ||||||||
| Meller et al. (2003) [27] | Prospective | 15 | Group 1: 38 Group 2: 40 |
PET and PET/CT | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | ACR criteria | Sensitivity: 73% Specificity: 100% |
|
| ||||||||
| Bleeker-Rovers et al. (2003) [28] | Retrospective | 22 | — | PET | Qualitative | Positive/negative | ACR criteria | Sensitivity: 77% Specificity: 100% PPV: 100% NPV: 82% |
|
| ||||||||
| Moosig et al. (2004) [29] | Prospective | 13 | 6 | PET | Qualitative and semiquantitative | Positive/negative and SUV vascular/lung ratio | PMR: exclusion of other causes of inflammation + Chuang and Healy criteria | Sensitivity: 100% Specificity: 100% |
|
| ||||||||
| Brodmann et al. (2004) [30] | Prospective | 22 | — | PET | Qualitative | Positive/negative | ACR criteria + positive hypoechogenic halo on DUS | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Scheel et al. (2004) [31] | Prospective | 8 | — | PET and PET/CT | Qualitative | Positive/negative | Clinical symptoms | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Walter et al. (2005) [32] | Prospective | 20 | 26 | PET | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | ACR criteria | Sensitivity: 60% Specificity: 99.8% PPV: 99.7% NPV: 67.9% Accuracy: 78.6% |
|
| ||||||||
| Blockmans et al. (2006) [21] | Prospective | 35 | — | PET | Semiquantitative | Visual grading scale | TAB | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Blockmans et al. (2007) [33] | Prospective | 35 | — | PET | Semiquantitative | Visual grading scale | PMR: clinical + negative TAB | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Henes et al. (2008) [34] | Prospective | 13 | — | PET/CT | Qualitative and semiquantitative | Positive/negative and highest SUVmax vascular | Clinical and diagnostic work-up (including DUS, MRI, CT, and TAB) | Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 100% |
|
| ||||||||
| Hautzel et al. (2008) [35] | Prospective | 18 | Group 1: 36 Group 2: 18 |
PET | Semiquantitative | Highest SUVmax aorta/liver ratio | ACR criteria or diagnostic work-up (including DUS, TAB, CT, and MRI) | Cut-off: 1.0 Sensitivity: 88.9% Specificity: 94.4%–95.1% Accuracy: 91.7%–93.2% PPV: 78.8%–88.9% NPV: 95.1%–97.7% |
|
| ||||||||
| Both et al. (2008) [36] | Prospective | 25 | — | PET | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | Birmingham vasculitis activity score (BVAS.2) | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Lehmann et al. (2011) [37] | Retrospective | 20 | 20 | PET | Qualitative and semiquantitative | Positive/negative and highest SUVmax | Clinical (ACR) diagnosis confirmed by histology or MRI angiography | Visual grading Sensitivity: 65% Specificity: 80% SUVmax (cut-off 1.78) Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 45% |
|
| ||||||||
| Henes et al. (2011) [38] | Retrospective | 10 | — | PET/CT | Qualitative | Visual grading scale | Clinical symptoms | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Hooisma et al. (2012) [39] | Retrospective | 62 | 242 | PET/CT | Qualitative | Positive/negative | Clinical symptoms | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Yamashita et al. (2012) [40] | Retrospective | 27 | 17 | PET/CT | Semiquantitative | Visual grading scale | PMR: Chuang et al. and Healy's criteria; no clinical evidence of temporal arteritis | Not specified |
|
| ||||||||
| Besson et al. (2013) [41] | Retrospective | 33 | 11 | PET/CT | Semiquantitative | A: highest SUVmax arterial/liver ratio | ACR criteria + TAB | Method C at aortic arch: cut-off value of 1.53 |
| A′: average SUVmax arterial/liver ratio | ||||||||
| B: highest SUVmax arterial/lung ratio | Sensitivity: 81.8% | |||||||
| B′: average SUVmax arterial/lung ratio | ||||||||
| C: highest arterial SUVmax/highest venous SUVmax | Specificity: 91% | |||||||
| C′: average arterial SUVmax/venous blood pool activity | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Prieto-González et al. (2014) [24] | Prospective | 32 | 20 | PET/CT | Semiquantitative | Highest SUVmax vascular/liver ratio | TAB | Any vascular territory (cut-off of 1.89) Sensitivity: 80% Specificity: 79% Epiaortic vessels (cut-off of 1.70) Sensitivity: 81% Specificity: 79% Aorta (cut-off 2.25) Sensitivity: 90% Specificity: 42% Aorta (cut-off 2.65) Sensitivity: 58% Specificity: 90% |