Cargando…
Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis
In this retrospective study, PET/CT data from 59 patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA) were reviewed using the Deauville criteria to determine an optimal cut-off between PET positivity and negativity. Seventeen standardised vascular regions were analysed per patient by three investigato...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9818714/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36611449 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13010157 |
_version_ | 1784865053654122496 |
---|---|
author | Siefert, Jeffrey Kaufmann, Jonas Thiele, Felix Walter-Rittel, Thula Rogasch, Julian Biesen, Robert Burmester, Gerd R. Amthauer, Holger Schneider, Udo Furth, Christian |
author_facet | Siefert, Jeffrey Kaufmann, Jonas Thiele, Felix Walter-Rittel, Thula Rogasch, Julian Biesen, Robert Burmester, Gerd R. Amthauer, Holger Schneider, Udo Furth, Christian |
author_sort | Siefert, Jeffrey |
collection | PubMed |
description | In this retrospective study, PET/CT data from 59 patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA) were reviewed using the Deauville criteria to determine an optimal cut-off between PET positivity and negativity. Seventeen standardised vascular regions were analysed per patient by three investigators blinded to clinical information. Statistical analysis included ROC curves with areas under the curve (AUC), Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa (κ) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement. According to final clinician’s diagnosis and the revised 2017 ACR criteria GCA was confirmed in 29 of 59 (49.2 %) patients. With a diagnostic cut-off ≥ 4 (highest tracer uptake of a vessel wall exceeds liver uptake) for PET positivity, all investigators achieved high accuracy (range, 89.8–93.2%) and AUC (range, 0.94–0.97). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89.7–96.6% and 83.3–96.7%, respectively. Agreement between the three investigators suggested ‘almost perfect agreement’ (Fleiss’ κ = 0.84) A Deauville score of ≥4 as threshold for PET positivity yielded excellent results with high accuracy and almost perfect inter-rater agreement, suggesting a standardized, reproducible, and reliable score in diagnosing GCA. However, the small sample size and reference standard could lead to biases. Therefore, verification in a multicentre study with a larger patient cohort and prospective setting is needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9818714 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98187142023-01-07 Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis Siefert, Jeffrey Kaufmann, Jonas Thiele, Felix Walter-Rittel, Thula Rogasch, Julian Biesen, Robert Burmester, Gerd R. Amthauer, Holger Schneider, Udo Furth, Christian Diagnostics (Basel) Article In this retrospective study, PET/CT data from 59 patients with suspected giant cell arteritis (GCA) were reviewed using the Deauville criteria to determine an optimal cut-off between PET positivity and negativity. Seventeen standardised vascular regions were analysed per patient by three investigators blinded to clinical information. Statistical analysis included ROC curves with areas under the curve (AUC), Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa (κ) to calculate sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and agreement. According to final clinician’s diagnosis and the revised 2017 ACR criteria GCA was confirmed in 29 of 59 (49.2 %) patients. With a diagnostic cut-off ≥ 4 (highest tracer uptake of a vessel wall exceeds liver uptake) for PET positivity, all investigators achieved high accuracy (range, 89.8–93.2%) and AUC (range, 0.94–0.97). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 89.7–96.6% and 83.3–96.7%, respectively. Agreement between the three investigators suggested ‘almost perfect agreement’ (Fleiss’ κ = 0.84) A Deauville score of ≥4 as threshold for PET positivity yielded excellent results with high accuracy and almost perfect inter-rater agreement, suggesting a standardized, reproducible, and reliable score in diagnosing GCA. However, the small sample size and reference standard could lead to biases. Therefore, verification in a multicentre study with a larger patient cohort and prospective setting is needed. MDPI 2023-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9818714/ /pubmed/36611449 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13010157 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Siefert, Jeffrey Kaufmann, Jonas Thiele, Felix Walter-Rittel, Thula Rogasch, Julian Biesen, Robert Burmester, Gerd R. Amthauer, Holger Schneider, Udo Furth, Christian Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title | Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title_full | Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title_fullStr | Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title_short | Performance of Deauville Criteria in ([18F])FDG-PET/CT Diagnostics of Giant Cell Arteritis |
title_sort | performance of deauville criteria in ([18f])fdg-pet/ct diagnostics of giant cell arteritis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9818714/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36611449 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13010157 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT siefertjeffrey performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT kaufmannjonas performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT thielefelix performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT walterrittelthula performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT rogaschjulian performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT biesenrobert performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT burmestergerdr performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT amthauerholger performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT schneiderudo performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis AT furthchristian performanceofdeauvillecriteriain18ffdgpetctdiagnosticsofgiantcellarteritis |