Schauwecker D S, Burt R W, Park H M, Mock B H, Tobolski M M, Yu P L, Wellman H N
Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
J Nucl Med. 1988 Jan;29(1):23-5.
Several methods have been proposed for the separation and labeling of white blood cells for the diagnosis of suspected infection. We retrospectively compared 105 patients imaged with 111In purified granulocytes (GRAN) to 106 patients imaged with 111In mixed leukocytes (MIX). We found that in acute infection the sensitivity of GRAN and MIX were both high and not statistically different. In chronic infections the sensitivities were lower than for acute infections. Again, there was no significant difference between GRAN and MIX with the borderline significant exception of MIX being superior to GRAN in chronic soft tissue infections (p = 0.06). We then had independent observers blindly grade the degree of lesion visualization. We found that delayed images visualized the lesions better than early images (p = 0.0001) and acute infection was better visualized than chronic infection (p = 0.03). We concluded that, in routine clinical practice, MIX is probably the agent of choice for three reasons: (a) easier preparation, (b) comparable sensitivity in acute infection and, (c) borderline superior sensitivity in chronic infection.
为诊断疑似感染,已提出多种分离和标记白细胞的方法。我们回顾性比较了105例接受111铟纯化粒细胞(GRAN)成像的患者与106例接受111铟混合白细胞(MIX)成像的患者。我们发现,在急性感染中,GRAN和MIX的敏感性都很高,且无统计学差异。在慢性感染中,敏感性低于急性感染。同样,GRAN和MIX之间没有显著差异,但在慢性软组织感染中MIX优于GRAN这一情况有边缘显著性差异(p = 0.06)。然后我们让独立观察者对病变可视化程度进行盲法分级。我们发现延迟图像比早期图像能更好地显示病变(p = 0.0001),急性感染比慢性感染能更好地显示病变(p = 0.03)。我们得出结论,在常规临床实践中,MIX可能是首选试剂,原因有三:(a)制备更简便,(b)在急性感染中敏感性相当,(c)在慢性感染中敏感性有边缘性优势。