Nielsen Andreas Wiggers, van der Geest Kornelis S M, Hansen Ib Tønder, Nielsen Berit Dalsgaard, Kjær Søren Geill, Blegvad-Nissen Jesper, Nienhuis Pieter H, Sandovici Maria, Rewers Kate, Sørensen Christian Møller, Slart Riemer H J A, Gormsen Lars Christian, Brouwer Elisabeth, Hauge Ellen-Margrethe, Keller Kresten Krarup
Department of Rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2025 Apr 1;64(4):2050-2058. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae377.
In routine care, clinicians may employ 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG)-PET/CT to validate their initial clinical diagnosis of PMR. Nevertheless, the diagnostic utility of combining FDG-PET/CT findings with clinical presentation has not been explored. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether the diagnostic accuracy for PMR could be enhanced by combining FDG-PET/CT findings with the clinical baseline diagnosis or the 2012 ACR/EULAR clinical classification criteria for PMR.
An investigation and a validation cohort were included from two countries, encompassing 66/27 and 36/21 PMR/non-PMR patients, respectively. The cohorts comprised treatment-naïve patients suspected of PMR, who initially received a clinical baseline diagnosis and underwent FDG-PET/CT scans. The FDG-PET/CT Leuven score was applied to classify patients as either PMR or non-PMR and combined with the clinical baseline diagnosis. Final diagnoses were established through clinical follow-up after 12 or six months in the investigation and validation cohorts, respectively.
In the investigation cohort, a clinical baseline diagnosis yielded a sensitivity/specificity of 94%/82%, compared with 78%/70% using the ACR/EULAR criteria. Combining the clinical baseline diagnosis with a positive Leuven score showed a sensitivity/specificity of 80%/93%, compared with 80%/82% for an ACR/EULAR-Leuven score. In the validation cohort, the baseline diagnosis revealed a sensitivity/specificity of 100%/91%, compared with 92%/76% using the ACR/EULAR criteria. Combining FDG-PET/CT with the baseline diagnosis demonstrated a sensitivity/specificity of 83%/95% compared with 89%/81% for the ACR/EULAR-Leuven score.
Combining FDG-PET/CT findings with the clinical baseline diagnosis or ACR/EULAR clinical classification criteria can improve the diagnostic specificity for PMR.
在常规医疗中,临床医生可能会采用2-[18F]氟-2-脱氧-D-葡萄糖(FDG)-PET/CT来验证其对PMR的初步临床诊断。然而,将FDG-PET/CT检查结果与临床表现相结合的诊断效用尚未得到探讨。因此,本研究旨在调查将FDG-PET/CT检查结果与临床基线诊断或2012年ACR/EULAR PMR临床分类标准相结合是否能提高PMR的诊断准确性。
从两个国家纳入了一个研究队列和一个验证队列,分别包含66/27例PMR/非PMR患者。这些队列包括疑似PMR的初治患者,他们最初接受了临床基线诊断并进行了FDG-PET/CT扫描。使用FDG-PET/CT鲁汶评分将患者分类为PMR或非PMR,并与临床基线诊断相结合。分别在研究队列和验证队列中经过12个月或6个月的临床随访后确定最终诊断。
在研究队列中,临床基线诊断的敏感性/特异性为94%/82%,而使用ACR/EULAR标准时为78%/70%。将临床基线诊断与阳性鲁汶评分相结合的敏感性/特异性为80%/93%,而ACR/EULAR-鲁汶评分的敏感性/特异性为80%/82%。在验证队列中,基线诊断的敏感性/特异性为100%/91%,而使用ACR/EULAR标准时为92%/76%。将FDG-PET/CT与基线诊断相结合的敏感性/特异性为83%/95%,而ACR/EULAR-鲁汶评分的敏感性/特异性为89%/81%。
将FDG-PET/CT检查结果与临床基线诊断或ACR/EULAR临床分类标准相结合可提高PMR的诊断特异性。