» Articles » PMID: 38812633

Evaluation of Baseline F-18 FDG Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Giant Cell Arteritis

Overview
Journal Turk J Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2024 May 30
PMID 38812633
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the baseline F18-FDG PET/CT findings of individuals diagnosed with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and to explore its association with clinical findings and classification criteria.

Materials And Methods: We analysed data from patients who underwent F18-FDG PET/CT scans to investigate large vessel (LV) involvement between 2010 and 2019. Only patients with a clinical diagnosis of GCA and at least 6 months of follow-up were included. We compared initial clinical features and laboratory findings based on the presence of LV vasculitis on PET/CT and the maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of vascular territories.

Results: Twenty-nine patients (median age at diagnosis: 70, F/M: 24/5) were included in the study. Among them, 21 patients (72.4%) presented with cranial symptoms, while 8 patients (27.5%) had isolated LV-GCA. Twenty-two patients (75.9%) met the ACR/EULAR 2022 GCA classification criteria. LV vasculitis was detected on PET/CT in 23 patients (79.3%). A positive correlation was observed between SUVmax in the thoracic aorta and both CRP and ESR levels (r = 0.50, p = 0.026 and r = 0.63, p = 0.002, respectively). PET/CT positive patients were found to be younger (p = 0.016) and more frequently female (p = 0.017). They also exhibited fewer headaches (56.5% vs. 100%, p = 0.04), experienced fewer flares during follow-up (p = 0.03), and had a lower cumulative glucocorticoid dose at the 6th month (p = 0.036). Comparison of PET/CT-positive patients (n = 23) based on the fulfilment of the ACR/EULAR 2022 classification criteria revealed that patients who met these criteria were older (p = 0.02) and had significantly lower CRP levels at diagnosis (p = 0.02).

Conclusion: The performance of F18-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing LV involvement in GCA is favourable, and the severity of FDG uptake in the vessel wall correlates with the acute phase response. Patients with extracranial involvement on PET/CT exhibit distinct features, including a younger age and female predominance. Additionally, these patients appear to experience fewer relapses and require lower doses of glucocorticoids. However, the clinical significance of PET/CT in patients who met ACR/EULAR classification criteria, predominantly consisting of patients with ischemic cranial symptoms, could not be determined in our study.

Citing Articles

Headache as the most common manifestation of giant cell arteritis?: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Osiowski A, Osiowski M, Stolarz K, Klepinowski T, Taterra D Rheumatol Int. 2025; 45(3):47.

PMID: 39932568 DOI: 10.1007/s00296-025-05803-9.

References
1.
Brack A, Martinez-Taboada V, Stanson A, Goronzy J, Weyand C . Disease pattern in cranial and large-vessel giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1999; 42(2):311-7. DOI: 10.1002/1529-0131(199902)42:2<311::AID-ANR14>3.0.CO;2-F. View

2.
Muratore F, Boiardi L, Restuccia G, Cavazza A, Catanoso M, Macchioni P . Relapses and long-term remission in large vessel giant cell arteritis in northern Italy: Characteristics and predictors in a long-term follow-up study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020; 50(4):549-558. DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.04.004. View

3.
Dumont A, Parienti J, Delmas C, Boutemy J, Maigne G, Martin Silva N . Factors Associated with Relapse and Dependence on Glucocorticoids in Giant Cell Arteritis. J Rheumatol. 2019; 47(1):108-116. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.181127. View

4.
Ponte C, Grayson P, Robson J, Suppiah R, Gribbons K, Judge A . 2022 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR Classification Criteria for Giant Cell Arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022; 74(12):1881-1889. DOI: 10.1002/art.42325. View

5.
Gonzalez-Gay M, Garcia-Porrua C, Amor-Dorado J, Llorca J . Giant cell arteritis without clinically evident vascular involvement in a defined population. Arthritis Rheum. 2004; 51(2):274-7. DOI: 10.1002/art.20231. View