FLT-PET for the assessment of systemic sarcoidosis including cardiac and CNS involvement: a prospective study with comparison to FDG-PET

Abstract

Abstract Background 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose’s (FDG) biodistribution limits the evaluation of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and neurosarcoidosis (NS). While protocols for cardiac suppression exist, they can be inconvenient for patients and lead to incomplete cardiac suppression in many cases. Furthermore, FDG PET is limited in the detection of neurosarcoidosis due to an inability to suppress high level of physiological uptake within the brain. 3′-deoxy-3′-[18F]fluorothymidine (FLT) has been shown to accumulate in sarcoidosis lesions and this tracer lacks significant physiological myocardial and brain uptake, suggesting that this tracer may be useful for the assessment of sarcoidosis, including CS and NS, without the need for patient preparation. This prospective pilot study examined the performance of FLT vs FDG PET for systemic sarcoidosis, including cardiac and neural involvement. Materials and methods Fourteen subjects with sarcoidosis were prospectively recruited and imaged with FDG- and FLT-PET. Two blinded, experienced readers independently reviewed the FLT-PET and FDG-PET images. Lesion distribution was compared between FLT and FDG. Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was determined using Cohen’s kappa and the intra-class correlation coefficient. Inter-observer variability of FLT and FDG-PET was assessed. Results Twelve subjects had CS as per Heart Rhythm Society criteria and 1 had NS. FLT-PET was positive in 12 (86%), and FDG-PET in 11 (79%), with cardiac uptake present in 6 (50%) and 7 (58%) of subjects with CS, respectively. The subject with NS demonstrated uptake on both FLT and FDG-PET, with more lesions on FLT. There were no significant differences in the anatomical distribution of lesions between FLT and FDG. SUVs were significantly (p < 0.001) higher for FDG than FLT (5.8 ± 3.0 vs 2.3 ± 1.1, respectively), but not (p = 0.90) after adjusting for blood pool activity (2.8 ± 1.4 vs 2.8 ± 1.1, respectively). Agreement between FLT- and FDG-PET was good to excellent for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, lung involvement, CS, and NS (κ = 0.76, 0.69, 0.86, and 1.0, respectively). Inter-observer agreement for FLT was excellent for diagnosing sarcoidosis, CS and NS (κ = 0.81, 0.85, and 1.0, respectively) and comparable to that of FDG. Conclusions FLT-PET may be useful for the assessment of systemic sarcoidosis, as well as cardiac and neural involvement.