Diagnostic accuracy and validation of
Leuven/Groningen score
PET
diagnostic accuracy
leuven score
polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR)
validation
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
08
2022
accepted:
31
08
2022
entrez:
10
10
2022
pubmed:
11
10
2022
medline:
11
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies have shown that Patients with a possible clinical diagnosis of PMR and a PET scan prior to the initiation of glucocorticoids between 2003 and 2020 were included retrospectively. The gold standard for the diagnosis of PMR was the judgment of two experienced clinicians after a follow-up of at least 6 months. FDG uptake was scored visually in 12 articular regions (scores 0-2) and a total skeletal score was calculated by summing the individual scores (maximum of 24 for the Leuven score and 14 for the Leuven/Groningen score). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the Youden index were used to determine the diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off points. A total of 162 patients with PMR and 83 control patients were included. Both PET scores showed high diagnostic accuracy in the ROC analysis (area under the curve 0.986 and 0.980, respectively). The Leuven Score provided a sensitivity of 91.4%, specificity of 97.6% and accuracy of 93.5% at its predefined cut-off point of 16. With the newly determined cut-off point of 12 the sensitivity was 98.8%, the specificity 95.2% and the accuracy 97.6%. The Leuven/Groningen score had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 93.2%, 95.2%, and 93.9%, respectively, with the pre-specified cut-off point of 8, and 96.9%, 92.8%, and 95.5% with the optimal cut-off point of 7. The original Leuven score and the simplified Leuven/Groningen score both had excellent diagnostic accuracy. The latter may be easier to apply in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Several studies have shown that
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Patients with a possible clinical diagnosis of PMR and a PET scan prior to the initiation of glucocorticoids between 2003 and 2020 were included retrospectively. The gold standard for the diagnosis of PMR was the judgment of two experienced clinicians after a follow-up of at least 6 months. FDG uptake was scored visually in 12 articular regions (scores 0-2) and a total skeletal score was calculated by summing the individual scores (maximum of 24 for the Leuven score and 14 for the Leuven/Groningen score). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the Youden index were used to determine the diagnostic accuracy and optimal cut-off points.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A total of 162 patients with PMR and 83 control patients were included. Both PET scores showed high diagnostic accuracy in the ROC analysis (area under the curve 0.986 and 0.980, respectively). The Leuven Score provided a sensitivity of 91.4%, specificity of 97.6% and accuracy of 93.5% at its predefined cut-off point of 16. With the newly determined cut-off point of 12 the sensitivity was 98.8%, the specificity 95.2% and the accuracy 97.6%. The Leuven/Groningen score had a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 93.2%, 95.2%, and 93.9%, respectively, with the pre-specified cut-off point of 8, and 96.9%, 92.8%, and 95.5% with the optimal cut-off point of 7.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The original Leuven score and the simplified Leuven/Groningen score both had excellent diagnostic accuracy. The latter may be easier to apply in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36213649
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1026944
pmc: PMC9533121
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1026944Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Moreel, Boeckxstaens, Betrains, Van Hemelen, Vanderschueren, Van Laere and Blockmans.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Sep;47(10):2461-2468
pubmed: 32090280
JAMA. 2016 Jun 14;315(22):2442-58
pubmed: 27299619
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Feb 17;8:646974
pubmed: 33681267
Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Dec 01;16(6):492
pubmed: 25435011
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Apr;43(4):773-9
pubmed: 26753600
ACR Open Rheumatol. 2020 Aug;2(8):478-490
pubmed: 33439554
Mod Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;25(4):546-51
pubmed: 25401232
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Aug;55(8):1452-7
pubmed: 27107429
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jun;48(6):1876-1889
pubmed: 33372248
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 06;11(7):e0158509
pubmed: 27384410
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Apr;64(4):943-54
pubmed: 22389040
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2018 Nov 1;57(11):1908-1916
pubmed: 29136209
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 Mar 2;61(3):1072-1082
pubmed: 34117743
Mod Rheumatol. 2012 Sep;22(5):705-11
pubmed: 22205118