4.6 Article

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 Positron Emission Tomography Coupled With Computed Tomography in Suspected Acute Renal Allograft Rejection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 310-316

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ajt.13429

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Liege (FondsSpeciaux a la Recherche)
  2. Fonds Leon Fredericq
  3. Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium (Prix O. Dupont)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with suspected acute rejection (AR) ultimately relies on kidney biopsy; however, noninvasive tests predicting nonrejection would help avoid unnecessary biopsy. AR involves recruitment of leukocytes avid for fluorodeoxyglucose F-18 (F-18-FDG), thus F-18-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) coupled with computed tomography (CT) may noninvasively distinguish nonrejection from AR. From January 2013 to February 2015, we prospectively performed 32 F-18-FDG PET/CT scans in 31 adult KTRs with suspected AR who underwent transplant biopsy. Biopsies were categorized into four groups: normal (n = 8), borderline (n = 10), AR (n = 8), or other (n = 6, including 3 with polyoma BK nephropathy). Estimated GFR was comparable in all groups. PET/CT was performed 201 +/- 18 minutes after administration of 3.2 +/- 0.2 MBq/kg of F-18-FDG, before any immunosuppression change. Mean standard uptake values (SUVs) of both upper and lower renal poles were measured. Mean SUVs reached 1.5 +/- 0.2, 1.6 +/- 0.3, 2.9 +/- 0.8, and 2.2 +/- 1.2 for the normal, borderline, AR, and other groups, respectively. One-way analysis of variance demonstrated a significant difference of mean SUVs among groups. A positive correlation between mean SUV and acute composite Banff score was found, with r(2) = 0.49. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.93, with 100% sensitivity and 50% specificity using a mean SUV threshold of 1.6. In conclusion, F-18-FDG PET/CT may help noninvasively prevent avoidable transplant biopsies in KTRs with suspected AR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据