Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
ReplyLetters to the Editor

Reply: On Semiquantitative Methods for Assessing Vascular 18F-FDG PET Activity in Large-Vessel Vasculitis

Mark A. Ahlman, Roberto Maass-Moreno and Peter C. Grayson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine February 2022, 63 (2) 326; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263158
Mark A. Ahlman
*National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: peter.grayson@nih.gov
Roberto Maass-Moreno
*National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: peter.grayson@nih.gov
Peter C. Grayson
*National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: peter.grayson@nih.gov
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY: We were pleased that discussion was brought forth by Laffon and Marthan because of our recent paper on quantitative and qualitative 18F-FDG PET for large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) (1). Indeed, we agree it could be revealing to attempt a measurement strategy that involves the appreciation of the hottest N number of voxels (SUVmax-N) as proposed by the authors. If N is greater than the number of single SUVmax measurements from each region of interest drawn over the entire arterial tree, SUVmax-N could lead to an overall more reproducible value in addition to a potentially greater contribution of abnormal activity in regions of active vasculitis than in regions without inflammation.

Although specific methodology to quantify vascular inflammation will no doubt be tested and refined, we would like to emphasize our underlying thought process for the design of our quantitative methodology, with reference to how this and other strategies for quantitative PET might be used for LVV. We will organize our discussion around 3 questions: What can be deployed clinically? What is most useful in clinical trials? What are we trying to do with vascular imaging in LVV?

For clinical deployment (question 1), even with the recent advent of greater acceptance of 18F-FDG PET in clinical evaluation of inflammatory disease (2), we acknowledge that large-vessel vasculitis is a rare disease that many interpreting physicians will not encounter frequently. Our experience is that extensive familiarity and care are necessary to rigorously apply a complex quantitative strategy that involves contouring of the arteries as applied in this study, which did not have the advantage of intravenous contrast medium for guidance. Regardless of how the specific voxels are aggregated mathematically, the contouring itself is likely to be beyond the abilities of the standard medical professional in routine clinical practice. Hence, our introduction of a qualitative metric such as PETVAS (3), which is similar, but not identical, to the emerging use of an ordinal scoring system in lymphoma (4). We showed that PETVAS is a reasonable clinically deployable alternative to what we felt was an inevitable question from the community, which is “why not use SUVs?” Another compelling reason to not yet favor the use of metrics such as SUV in the clinic for LVV relates to the common misapplication of quantitative metrics from the literature for sensitivity and specificity in image interpretation. The performance characteristics of a quantitative metric are appropriately applied if images can be reproduced in a uniform format, which must be standardized across vendors with identical imaging characteristics that harmonize important features such as resolution, noise, voxel size, and postreconstruction filtering. Despite recent meaningful attempts (5), such a level of uniform standardization will likely not soon be achievable in clinical practice.

For clinical trials (question 2), we see a role for complementary advanced quantitative strategies as we and others have proposed. Clinical trials more often involve multiple imaging time points of the same subject before and after a treatment or intervention, using the same imaging characteristics. Our project highlighted that both qualitative and quantitative methods are associated with clinical measures of disease activity, and both approaches could be used to facilitate discovery in research; however, qualitative approaches potentially offer more precision and reliability.

Regarding question 3, it may sound odd to ask “what are we actually trying to do?” As investigators conducting an ongoing, large prospective observational cohort study on LVV, we would like to emphasize that interpretation of 18F-FDG PET findings should be considered in the context of disease activity assessment across other domains. 18F-FDG PET is only 1 facet of the multidisciplinary approach needed to fully realize patient-specific treatment guidance. Comprehensive clinical, laboratory, and imaging assessment is often helpful to accurately assess disease activity and inform management decisions. The cumulative burden of vascular involvement does not always correlate with clinical outcomes. A small focal inflammatory lesion in a single artery may lead to severe vascular damage with disastrous consequences, whereas profound near pan-arterial intense inflammation may occur in an otherwise asymptomatic patient. To inform the details of a better qualitative or quantitative evaluation for individualized care with advanced methods proposed by our group or others, we must continue to define the complex associations between 18F-FDG PET findings and clinical outcomes in LVV. Controlled environments, such as randomized clinical trials, will go further to answer questions related to the combinatory use of qualitative and quantitative PET, as well as specifics for the production of each.

DISCLOSURE

This study was supported by the Intramural Research Programs of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS). No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Oct. 28, 2021.

  • © 2022 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Dashora HR,
    2. Rosenblum JS,
    3. Quinn KA,
    4. et al
    . Comparing semi-quantitative and qualitative methods of vascular FDG-PET activity measurement in large-vessel vasculitis. J Nucl Med. June 4, 2021 [Epub ahead of print].
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wahl RL,
    2. Dilsizian V,
    3. Palestro CJ.
    At last, 18F-FDG for inflammation and infection! J Nucl Med. 2021;62:1048–1049.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Grayson PC,
    2. Alehashemi S,
    3. Bagheri AA,
    4. et al
    . 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker in a prospective, longitudinal cohort of patients with large vessel vasculitis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70:439–449.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Cheson BD,
    2. Fisher RI,
    3. Barrington SF,
    4. et al
    . Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3059–3068.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Slart RHJA
    , writing group; reviewer group; members of EANM Cardiovascular; members of EANM Infection & Inflammation; Members of Committees, SNMMI Cardiovascular; Members of Council, PET Interest Group; Members of ASNC; EANM Committee Coordinator. FDG-PET/CT(A) imaging in large vessel vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica: joint procedural recommendation of the EANM, SNMMI, and the PET Interest Group (PIG), and endorsed by the ASNC. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging . 2018;45:1250–1269.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  • Received for publication September 1, 2021.
  • Revision received October 12, 2021.
  • Accepted for publication October 13, 2021.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 63 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue 2
February 1, 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply: On Semiquantitative Methods for Assessing Vascular 18F-FDG PET Activity in Large-Vessel Vasculitis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Reply: On Semiquantitative Methods for Assessing Vascular 18F-FDG PET Activity in Large-Vessel Vasculitis
Mark A. Ahlman, Roberto Maass-Moreno, Peter C. Grayson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2022, 63 (2) 326; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263158

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply: On Semiquantitative Methods for Assessing Vascular 18F-FDG PET Activity in Large-Vessel Vasculitis
Mark A. Ahlman, Roberto Maass-Moreno, Peter C. Grayson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2022, 63 (2) 326; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263158
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Redefining Nuclear Medicine: “Biodistribution” Should Be the Core Concept
  • Routine Dosimetry: Proceed with Caution
  • 176Lu Radiation in Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET Scanners: A Nonissue for Patient Safety
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire