Diagnostic value of bone scintigraphy versus cardiovascular magnetic resonance in cardiac amyloidosis.

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Josefin Obergassel, Michael Bietenbeck, Nuriye Akyol, Volker Vehof, Claudia Meier, Maria Theofanidou, Philipp Stalling, Ali Yilmaz
{"title":"Diagnostic value of bone scintigraphy versus cardiovascular magnetic resonance in cardiac amyloidosis.","authors":"Josefin Obergassel, Michael Bietenbeck, Nuriye Akyol, Volker Vehof, Claudia Meier, Maria Theofanidou, Philipp Stalling, Ali Yilmaz","doi":"10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate diagnosis of transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) and its differentiation from light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (CA) cases (AL-CM) are of paramount importance. Surprisingly, comparative imaging data based on concurrent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and bone scintigraphy in the same patients with biopsy-proven diagnosis of CA are still rare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a real-world retrospective single-center study based on a local clinical care pipeline and we carefully analyzed clinical, laboratory, CMR, and bone scintigraphy data (and if necessary additional endomyocardial biopsy [EMB] data) in patients with suspected CA. As a major inclusion criterion, we only looked at those patients who underwent both a CMR study and a bone scintigraphy-with a clear-cut imaging finding detected by at least one imaging method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred twenty three patients in whom the final diagnosis was obtained either non-invasively based on combined findings from bone scintigraphy and monoclonal protein studies or invasively based on additional EMB findings were included. A positive CMR result indicating the presence of CA was found in 121 patients-suggesting a CMR sensitivity of 98.4% for the diagnosis of any CA. Bone scintigraphy identified 18 patients with low to moderate uptake (Perugini score = 0-1) and 105 patients with high uptake (Perugini score ≥2)-resulting in a sensitivity for bone scintigraphy of 85.4% for the diagnosis of any CA. There was an agreement (\"diagnostic match\") between CMR and bone scintigraphy results in 103 patients (84%) of the total study cohort, while a discrepancy (\"diagnostic mismatch\") was observed in 20 patients (16%). In 18 out of these 20 diagnostic mismatch cases, CMR correctly diagnosed the presence of CA despite a negative or inconclusive result on bone scintigraphy (8 with AL-CM, 8 with ATTR-CM, and 2 with EMB-proven but unspecified CA).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CMR shows a substantially higher diagnostic yield for the diagnosis of CA compared to bone scintigraphy, if a real-world cohort of patients comprising different subtypes of CA is looked at, since CMR does not only detect ATTR-CM but also depicts other CA subtypes such as AL. In case of a clear-cut positive CMR result unequivocally indicative of CA, there is no incremental diagnostic value of an additionally performed bone scintigraphy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","volume":" ","pages":"101859"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocmr.2025.101859","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Accurate diagnosis of transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) and its differentiation from light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (CA) cases (AL-CM) are of paramount importance. Surprisingly, comparative imaging data based on concurrent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and bone scintigraphy in the same patients with biopsy-proven diagnosis of CA are still rare.

Methods: This was a real-world retrospective single-center study based on a local clinical care pipeline and we carefully analyzed clinical, laboratory, CMR, and bone scintigraphy data (and if necessary additional endomyocardial biopsy [EMB] data) in patients with suspected CA. As a major inclusion criterion, we only looked at those patients who underwent both a CMR study and a bone scintigraphy-with a clear-cut imaging finding detected by at least one imaging method.

Results: One hundred twenty three patients in whom the final diagnosis was obtained either non-invasively based on combined findings from bone scintigraphy and monoclonal protein studies or invasively based on additional EMB findings were included. A positive CMR result indicating the presence of CA was found in 121 patients-suggesting a CMR sensitivity of 98.4% for the diagnosis of any CA. Bone scintigraphy identified 18 patients with low to moderate uptake (Perugini score = 0-1) and 105 patients with high uptake (Perugini score ≥2)-resulting in a sensitivity for bone scintigraphy of 85.4% for the diagnosis of any CA. There was an agreement ("diagnostic match") between CMR and bone scintigraphy results in 103 patients (84%) of the total study cohort, while a discrepancy ("diagnostic mismatch") was observed in 20 patients (16%). In 18 out of these 20 diagnostic mismatch cases, CMR correctly diagnosed the presence of CA despite a negative or inconclusive result on bone scintigraphy (8 with AL-CM, 8 with ATTR-CM, and 2 with EMB-proven but unspecified CA).

Conclusion: CMR shows a substantially higher diagnostic yield for the diagnosis of CA compared to bone scintigraphy, if a real-world cohort of patients comprising different subtypes of CA is looked at, since CMR does not only detect ATTR-CM but also depicts other CA subtypes such as AL. In case of a clear-cut positive CMR result unequivocally indicative of CA, there is no incremental diagnostic value of an additionally performed bone scintigraphy.

骨显像对心脏淀粉样变的诊断价值。
目的与背景:甲状腺素转蛋白淀粉样变性心肌病(atr - cm)的准确诊断及其与轻链(AL)型心脏淀粉样变性心肌病(AL- cm)的鉴别是至关重要的,因为治疗策略完全不同,在疾病早期发现的情况下明显更成功。令人惊讶的是,基于并发心血管磁共振(CMR)和骨显像的比较成像数据在活检证实的CA诊断的同一患者中仍然很少见。方法:这是一项基于当地临床护理管道的真实世界回顾性单中心研究,我们仔细分析了疑似CA患者的临床、实验室、CMR、骨闪烁成像数据(如果必要的话,还有额外的心内膜肌活检(EMB)数据)。作为主要的纳入标准,我们只研究了同时进行CMR研究和骨闪烁成像的患者,并且至少有一种成像方法检测到明确的成像发现。结果:N=123例患者的最终诊断要么是基于骨显像和单克隆蛋白研究的非侵入性结果,要么是基于其他EMB结果的侵入性结果。积极CMR结果显示CA的存在被发现在121名患者,暗示CMR的诊断敏感性为98.4%,骨显像发现18例低到中度吸收(Perugini-score = 0 - 1)和105例高吸收(Perugini-score≥2)——导致灵敏度为85.4%的骨显像的诊断任何CA。有一个协议(“诊断匹配”)之间的CMR和骨显像结果总数的103名患者(84%)在20例(16%)患者中观察到差异(“诊断不匹配”)。在这20例诊断不匹配的病例中,18例CMR正确诊断出CA的存在,尽管骨显像结果为阴性或不确定(8例AL-CM, 8例atr - cm, 2例emb证实但未指明的CA)。结论:如果观察包含不同CA亚型的真实患者队列,CMR在CA诊断方面的诊断率要比骨显像高得多,因为CMR不仅可以检测atr - cm,还可以描述其他CA亚型,如AL。如果CMR结果明确表明CA,则额外进行骨显像检查没有增加诊断价值。与行业政策的关系:没有任何制药公司的资金支持和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) publishes high-quality articles on all aspects of basic, translational and clinical research on the design, development, manufacture, and evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) methods applied to the cardiovascular system. Topical areas include, but are not limited to: New applications of magnetic resonance to improve the diagnostic strategies, risk stratification, characterization and management of diseases affecting the cardiovascular system. New methods to enhance or accelerate image acquisition and data analysis. Results of multicenter, or larger single-center studies that provide insight into the utility of CMR. Basic biological perceptions derived by CMR methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信