| Autor: |
Siefert J; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany., Kaufmann J; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany., Thiele F; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany., Walter-Rittel T; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiology, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany., Rogasch J; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.; Berlin Institute of Health atCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany., Biesen R; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany., Burmester GR; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany., Amthauer H; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany., Schneider U; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany., Furth C; Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Nucelar Medicine, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany. |
| Abstrakt: |
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. |
