However, per segments of the aorta and branches, FDG-PET/CT was significantly more sensitive than CTA (98% versus 61%) [36,37]. In a small study, the FDG-PET/CT score (visual and quantitative) was noted to be slightly superior to contrast-enhanced CT, with a strong correlation between the inflammatory markers [38]. Similarly, Noncerebral Vasculitis another study comparing contrast-enhanced CT and FDG-PET revealed that FDG-PET/CT demonstrated excellent accuracy, whereas contrast-enhanced CT mural thickening exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of LVV [34]. A large prospective study comparing FDG-PET/CT and MRA demonstrated that FDG-PET/CT provides more information about disease activity, although MRA reveals anatomical changes and vascular damage [53]. Einspieler et al [54] investigated the performance of FDG-PET/MRI in patients with LVV. They assessed the individual value of FDG-PET and MRI, as well as compared FDG-PET/CT with FDG-PET/MRI. The authors concluded that FDG- PET/MRI and FDG-PET/CT produce consistent results and are highly comparable modalities. Similar to earlier studies, FDG-PET detected more abnormal vascular segments than MRA. In addition, disease activity assessment by PET was associated with the clinical assessment. It has been shown that FDG-PET/CT also has prognostic value in patients with LVV [55,56]. In a multicenter study of 130 patients, inflammation in the aorta on FDG-PET/CT studies was reported to be a risk factor for aortic complications, particularly aneurysmal dilation or dissection [55]. FDG-PET/CT also may predict the long-term clinical outcome of patients with LVV. Two studies demonstrated that increased intensity of FDG uptake and extensive involvement of the vessels appeared to predict a less favorable response to treatment and more likely relapse during the follow- up, although the number of patients was small [46,57]. As mentioned earlier, PMR can be isolated or can occur in tandem with GCA and is often diagnosed based on symptoms.
Noncerebral Vasculitis. However, per segments of the aorta and branches, FDG-PET/CT was significantly more sensitive than CTA (98% versus 61%) [36,37]. In a small study, the FDG-PET/CT score (visual and quantitative) was noted to be slightly superior to contrast-enhanced CT, with a strong correlation between the inflammatory markers [38]. Similarly, Noncerebral Vasculitis another study comparing contrast-enhanced CT and FDG-PET revealed that FDG-PET/CT demonstrated excellent accuracy, whereas contrast-enhanced CT mural thickening exhibited good accuracy for the diagnosis of LVV [34]. A large prospective study comparing FDG-PET/CT and MRA demonstrated that FDG-PET/CT provides more information about disease activity, although MRA reveals anatomical changes and vascular damage [53]. Einspieler et al [54] investigated the performance of FDG-PET/MRI in patients with LVV. They assessed the individual value of FDG-PET and MRI, as well as compared FDG-PET/CT with FDG-PET/MRI. The authors concluded that FDG- PET/MRI and FDG-PET/CT produce consistent results and are highly comparable modalities. Similar to earlier studies, FDG-PET detected more abnormal vascular segments than MRA. In addition, disease activity assessment by PET was associated with the clinical assessment. It has been shown that FDG-PET/CT also has prognostic value in patients with LVV [55,56]. In a multicenter study of 130 patients, inflammation in the aorta on FDG-PET/CT studies was reported to be a risk factor for aortic complications, particularly aneurysmal dilation or dissection [55]. FDG-PET/CT also may predict the long-term clinical outcome of patients with LVV. Two studies demonstrated that increased intensity of FDG uptake and extensive involvement of the vessels appeared to predict a less favorable response to treatment and more likely relapse during the follow- up, although the number of patients was small [46,57]. As mentioned earlier, PMR can be isolated or can occur in tandem with GCA and is often diagnosed based on symptoms.