Establishing an Evidence-Based Method to Diagnose Cardiac Sarcoidosis

HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular ImagingVol. 11, No. 1Establishing an Evidence-Based Method to Diagnose Cardiac Sarcoidosis Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBEstablishing an Evidence-Based Method to Diagnose Cardiac SarcoidosisThe Complementary Use of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and FDG-PET Edward J. Miller, MD, PhD and Daniel A. Culver, DO Edward J. MillerEdward J. Miller From the Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (E.J.M.); and Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH (D.A.C.). and Daniel A. CulverDaniel A. Culver From the Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (E.J.M.); and Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH (D.A.C.). Originally published15 Jan 2018https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007408Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2018;11:e007408The diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) can be extremely challenging. Although there are several clinical criteria that have been reported and are used in clinical practice,1–3 these criteria are fraught with problems. For example, they are insensitive to downstream cardiac events in comparison to imaging findings seen on cardiac MRI (CMR) and cardiac 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scans. In addition, all of the published criteria require the a priori diagnosis of extracardiac sarcoidosis. Further, none of the clinical criteria was experimentally derived. Last, none of the 3 major diagnostic rubrics recapitulates the process of clinical reasoning, where each additional variable informs the interpretation of the others. For example, a single focus of delayed enhancement on CMR is far more meaningful in patients with sarcoidosis if there is also complete heart block and septal thinning.See Article by Vita et alTherefore, clinicians caring for patients with suspected CS (as well as the patients themselves) have urgently needed a more coherent conceptual framework for the diagnosis of CS that uses both modern cardiac imaging tools available in clinical practice as well as incorporation of their clinical context. In this regard, the study by Vita et al4 reported in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging is an important step forward in our understanding of how to approach the diagnosis of CS.In this study, the cardiac imaging group at Brigham and Women's Hospital retrospectively evaluated the combined use of CMR and FDG-PET imaging in patients being evaluated for CS. What is unique about this cohort of 107 patients is that all had both imaging studies within a median of 8 days, and this standardization of patient care for CS enabled subsequent conclusions to drawn about the utility of each of these tests in clinical practice. This is the largest reported series of potential patients with CS imaged in this manner and is unlikely to be repeated outside of a prospective clinical trial.The analyses performed in this trial focused on blinded reinterpretation of both the CMR and FDG-PET scans (without access to clinical data) and the assignment of a likelihood of CS from the combined imaging findings as follows:– No CS (<10%)—no evidence of CS or an alternative diagnosis established.– Possible CS (10% to 50%)—when imaging findings are not specific for CS. CS could not be excluded but an alternative diagnosis was more likely.– Probable CS (50% to 90%)—when imaging findings are suggestive by not definitive for CS.– Highly Probable CS (>90%)—when imaging findings are highly specific for CS.Using this framework, the combination of FDG-PET and CMR image data reclassified 48 (45%) of patients compared with single-modality imaging, including 11% of patients being newly classified as highly probable and 32 out of 48 patients being reclassified to a higher likelihood overall. This result is not unexpected, because accumulating additional data points, in general, will tend to lead to increased confidence about any conclusion. Nonetheless, it more closely approximates the actual process of clinical reasoning, where test results are considered in combination, not in isolation.After imaging reinterpretation, all available clinical data were integrated by experts in the care of patients with CS to obtain a final likelihood of CS as the reference standard. This probabilistic framework that integrates expert interpretation of all imaging, testing, and clinical data to determine a specific patient's likelihood of CS deserves consideration as a potential new gold standard for the diagnosis of CS. A more complete description of the exact process, including participants, data available, and discussion format would be useful for other institutions that may wish to reproduce this strategy. A similar approach has been widely accepted for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases, where a multidisciplinary discussion is widely regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis of diseases such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.5,6Endomyocardial biopsy has been considered as a gold standard for CS to this point. However, in this report, 21 of the 38 patients that underwent endomyocardial biopsy were judged to have highly probable (>90% likelihood) CS, but only 3 had positive biopsies. This is consistent with other small series that have consistently shown endomyocardial biopsy to be an insensitive tool. Given the insensitivity of endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosing CS, a new gold standard needs to be developed and validated; the multidisciplinary discussion is likely to be the optimal pathway toward that goal.Given the absence of a truly confirmatory test for CS, any final diagnosis is tenuous. Response to immunosuppressive therapy might be useful, but the natural history of untreated CS is unknown, and it remains unproven that immunosuppression is uniformly helpful in all cases. Thus, at present, the ultimate test of a diagnostic rubric is whether it improves clinician confidence (true in this case) or improves prognostic discriminative capability (unknown to date for any of the 3 major criteria). Validation of any diagnostic criteria, or any component of a diagnostic rubric, will necessitate demonstrating at a minimum improved clinician confidence, and optimally enhanced prognostic performance. Any individual clinical characteristic (eg, ventricular tachycardia) or test (eg, FDG-PET) should be demonstrated to provide incremental confidence or prognostic capacity to be included as a validated component of a multicomponent set. In this regard, the current article forms a circular argument: clinicians think of the utility of a test, and then define the outcome (confidence in diagnosis) partly on the basis of that test, thereby corroborating the usefulness of the test. Future efforts should investigate the incremental value of each test on the overall confidence of diagnosis.Other important contributions of this report are its concise descriptions and examples of imaging patterns for both CMR and FDG-PET that correspond to the probabilistic likelihood assignments (Figure 2 of Vita et al4). The nuanced description of imaging patterns is this report are commendable. Simply reporting late gadolinium enhancement or FDG as binary variables on the report without a contextual, pattern-based interpretation of the likelihood of CS for the referring clinician is inadequate. Patients are receiving potentially toxic immunosuppression and implantable cardioverter defibrillators based on unnuanced FDG and CMR interpretations, respectively. The interpretive standards advocated by this report are consistent with recent imaging society guidelines7,8 and are a wonderful clinical guide for interpretive readers.It should be emphasized that this report does not end the story of how best to diagnose CS. One obvious area of future study is to show that the probabilistic diagnostic approach advocated by these authors can be prospectively validated and beneficial for risk stratification. In particular, although there was no significant change in event rate based on the various classifications, the study was underpowered to evaluate this clinical outcome. But, this framework writes an important chapter in how we as imagers and caregivers for patients with CS may design the prospective clinical trials urgently needed to evaluate therapeutic decision making and outcomes in CS. Last, these data should provide strong arguments to third-party payers that the combination of CMR and FDG-PET imaging may add significant incremental benefit for many patients. Too many payers limit use of so-called advanced cardiac imaging studies, even to the point of denying use of FDG-PET for any indication for CS. These studies are complementary and not redundant, and we need to advocate to payers that both studies are of benefit in many cases.In conclusion, as our field works to establish an evidence-based method for the diagnosis of CS, we need to acknowledge the past work and clinical criteria that have gotten us to where we are. But we also need to be ready to embrace data-driven, experimental frameworks that incorporate imaging data and clinical reasoning, can clarify the field, and add benefit to our care of patients with CS.Sources of FundingDr Miller received grant funding from Bracco, Inc for FDG-PET examinations in cardiac sarcoidosis unrelated to the present study.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Correspondence to Edward J. Miller, MD, PhD, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06520. E-mail [email protected]References1. Hiraga H, Yuwai K, Hiroe M. Guideline for diagnosis of cardiacsarcoidosis: study report on diffuse pulmonary diseases from the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare.The Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare. 1993;23–24.Google Scholar2. Judson MA, Costabel U, Drent M, Wells A, Maier L, Koth L, Shigemitsu H, Culver DA, Gelfand J, Valeyre D, Sweiss N, Crouser E, Morgenthau AS, Lower EE, Azuma A, Ishihara M, Morimoto S, Tetsuo Yamaguchi T, Shijubo N, Grutters JC, Rosenbach M, Li HP, Rottoli P, Inoue Y, Prasse A, Baughman RP; Organ Assessment Instrument Investigators TW. The WASOG sarcoidosis organ assessment instrument: an update of a previous clinical tool.Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2014; 31:19–27.MedlineGoogle Scholar3. Birnie DH, Sauer WH, Bogun F, Cooper JM, Culver DA, Duvernoy CS, Judson MA, Kron J, Mehta D, Cosedis Nielsen J, Patel AR, Ohe T, Raatikainen P, Soejima K. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis.Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11:1305–1323. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.03.043.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Vita T, Okada DR, Veillet-Chowdhury M, Bravo PE, Mullins E, Hulten E, Agrawal M, Madan R, Taqueti VR, Steigner M, Skali H, Kwong RY, Stewart G, Dorbala S, Di Carli MF, Blankstein R. Complementary value of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the assessment of cardiac sarcoidosis.Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018; 11:e007030.doi: 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007030.LinkGoogle Scholar5. Flaherty KR, King TE, Raghu G, Lynch JP, Colby TV, Travis WD, Gross BH, Kazerooni EA, Toews GB, Long Q, Murray S, Lama VN, Gay SE, Martinez FJ. Idiopathic interstitial pneumonia: what is the effect of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis?Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004; 170:904–910. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200402-147OC.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Walsh SLF, Maher TM, Kolb M, Poletti V, Nusser R, Richeldi L, Vancheri C, Wilsher ML, Antoniou KM, Behr J, Bendstrup E, Brown K, Calandriello L, Corte TJ, Cottin V, Crestani B, Flaherty K, Glaspole I, Grutters J, Inoue Y, Kokosi M, Kondoh Y, Kouranos V, Kreuter M, Johannson K, Judge E, Ley B, Margaritopoulos G, Martinez FJ, Molina-Molina M, Morais A, Nunes H, Raghu G, Ryerson CJ, Selman M, Spagnolo P, Taniguchi H, Tomassetti S, Valeyre D, Wijsenbeek M, Wuyts W, Hansell D, Wells A; IPF Project Consortium. Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an international case-cohort study.Eur Respir J. 2017; 50:1700936. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00936-2017.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Chareonthaitawee P, Beanlands RS, Chen W, Dorbala S, Miller EJ, Murthy VL, Birnie DH, Chen ES, Cooper LT, Tung RH, White ES, Borges-Neto S, Di Carli MF, Gropler RJ, Ruddy TD, Schindler TH, Blankstein R; NAME OF COLLAB GROUP. Joint SNMMI-ASNC Expert Consensus Document on the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in cardiac sarcoid detection and therapy monitoring.J Nucl Med. 2017; 58:1341–1353. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.117.196287.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Slart RHJA, Glaudemans AWJM, Lancellotti P, Hyafil F, Blankstein R, Schwartz RG, Jaber WA, Russell R, Gimelli A, Rouzet F, Hacker M, Gheysens O, Plein S, Miller EJ, Dorbala S, Donal E; DocumentReadingGroup. A joint procedural position statement on imaging in cardiac sarcoidosis: from the Cardiovascular and Inflammation & Infection Committees of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology [published online ahead of print October 17, 2017].J Nucl Cardiol. doi: 10.1007/s12350-017-1043-4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12350-017-1043-4. Accessed January 4, 2018.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByNordenswan H, Pöyhönen P, Lehtonen J, Ekström K, Uusitalo V, Niemelä M, Vihinen T, Kaikkonen K, Haataja P, Kerola T, Rissanen T, Alatalo A, Pietilä-Effati P and Kupari M (2022) Incidence of Sudden Cardiac Death and Life-Threatening Arrhythmias in Clinically Manifest Cardiac Sarcoidosis With and Without Current Indications for an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, Circulation, 146:13, (964-975), Online publication date: 27-Sep-2022. Melani A, Simona A, Armati M, d'Alessandro M and Bargagli E (2021) A Comprehensive Review of Sarcoidosis Diagnosis and Monitoring for the Pulmonologist, Pulmonary Therapy, 10.1007/s41030-021-00161-w, 7:2, (309-324), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2021. Gallegos C, Oikonomou E, Grimshaw A, Gulati M, Young B and Miller E (2021) Non-steroidal treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis: A systematic review, IJC Heart & Vasculature, 10.1016/j.ijcha.2021.100782, 34, (100782), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021. Masri S and Bellumkonda L (2020) Sarcoid Heart Disease: an Update on Diagnosis and Management, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-020-01429-4, 22:12, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Romitan D, Rădulescu D, Berindan-Neagoe I, Stoicescu L, Grosu A, Rădulescu L, Gulei D and Ciuleanu T (2020) Cardiomyopathies and Arrhythmias Induced by Cancer Therapies, Biomedicines, 10.3390/biomedicines8110496, 8:11, (496) Nikpanah M, Katal S, Christensen T, Werner T, Hess S, Malayeri A, Gholamrezanezhad A, Alavi A and Saboury B (2020) Potential Applications of PET Scans, CT Scans, and MR Imaging in Inflammatory Diseases, PET Clinics, 10.1016/j.cpet.2020.06.010, 15:4, (559-576), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Kennel P, Raza F, Kim J, Singh P, Borczuk A, Krishnan U, Karas M, Sobol I, Cameli M, Carazo C, Schõnbauer R, Mukherjee R and Patel P (2020) A case series on inflammatory cardiomyopathy and suspected cardiac sarcoidosis: role of cardiac PET in management, European Heart Journal - Case Reports, 10.1093/ehjcr/ytaa146, 4:4, (1-9), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2020. Herrmann J (2020) Adverse cardiac effects of cancer therapies: cardiotoxicity and arrhythmia, Nature Reviews Cardiology, 10.1038/s41569-020-0348-1, 17:8, (474-502), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2020. Ribeiro Neto M, Jellis C, Joyce E, Callahan T, Hachamovitch R and Culver D (2019) Update in Cardiac Sarcoidosis, Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201902-119CME, 16:11, (1341-1350), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019. January 2018Vol 11, Issue 1 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.007408PMID: 29335273 Originally publishedJanuary 15, 2018 Keywordssarcoidosisheart blockidiopathic pulmonary fibrosispatient careEditorialsmagnetic resonance imagingPDF download Advertisement SubjectsMagnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Nuclear Cardiology and PET

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.