Noncerebral Vasculitis

Variant: 1 Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRA chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler upper extremity	May Be Appropriate	O
Arteriography chest abdomen pelvis	May Be Appropriate	Varies
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA neck with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRA neck without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRA neck without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler chest abdomen pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler iliofemoral arteries	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA coronary arteries without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA coronary arteries without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Arteriography chest abdomen pelvis	Usually Appropriate	Varies
CTA chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢☢
MRA chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRA chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT chest abdomen pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler chest abdomen pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler iliofemoral arteries	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler upper extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA coronary arteries without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA coronary arteries without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA neck with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA neck without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA neck without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT chest abdomen pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Ayaz Aghayev, MD^a; Michael L. Steigner, MD^b; Ezana M. Azene, MD, PhD^c; Judah Burns, MD^d; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee, MD^e; Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhD^f; Riham H. El Khouli, MD, PhD^g; Peter C. Grayson, MD, MSc^h; Sandeep S. Hedgire, MDⁱ; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, ^j; Luke N. Ledbetter, MD^k; Yoo Jin Lee, MD^l; David M. Mauro, MD^m; Andres Pelaez, MDⁿ; Anil K. Pillai, MD^o; Nimarta Singh, MD, MPH^p; Pal S. Suranyi, MD, PhD^q; Nupur Verma, MD^r; Eric E. Williamson, MD^s; Karin E. Dill, MD^t.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography chest abdomen pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
B. CTA Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
C. CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
D. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
E. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
F. MRA Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
G. MRI Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
H. MRA Coronary Arteries

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
I. MRA Neck

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
J. MRI Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
K. US Duplex Doppler Aorta Abdomen

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
L. US Duplex Doppler Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
M. US Duplex Doppler Upper Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
N. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected large-vessel vasculitis (LVV). Initial imaging.
O. US Duplex Doppler Iliofemoral Arteries

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography chest abdomen pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
B. CTA Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
C. CT Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
D. CTA Coronary Arteries

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
E. FDG-PET/CT Whole Body

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
F. MRA Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
G. MRI Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
H. MRA Coronary Arteries

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
I. MRA Neck

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
J. MRI Heart Function and Morphology

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
K. US Duplex Doppler Aorta Abdomen

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
L. US Duplex Doppler Chest Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
M. US Duplex Doppler Upper Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
N. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected medium-vessel vasculitis (MVV). Initial imaging.
O. US Duplex Doppler Iliofemoral Arteries

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Muratore F, Kermani TA, Crowson CS, et al. Large-vessel giant cell arteritis: a cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 54(3):463-70, 2015 Mar.
2.	Koster MJ, Matteson EL, Warrington KJ. Large-vessel giant cell arteritis: diagnosis, monitoring and management. [Review]. Rheumatology (Oxford). 57(suppl_2):ii32-ii42, 2018 02 01.
3.	Stone JH, Tuckwell K, Dimonaco S, et al. Trial of Tocilizumab in Giant-Cell Arteritis. N Engl J Med. 377(4):317-328, 2017 07 27.
4.	Weyand CM, Goronzy JJ. Clinical practice. Giant-cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica. N Engl J Med 2014;371:50-7.
5.	Kim ESH, Beckman J. Takayasu arteritis: challenges in diagnosis and management. [Review]. Heart. 104(7):558-565, 2018 04.
6.	Broncano J, Vargas D, Bhalla S, Cummings KW, Raptis CA, Luna A. CT and MR Imaging of Cardiothoracic Vasculitis. [Review]. Radiographics. 38(4):997-1021, 2018 Jul-Aug.Radiographics. 38(4):997-1021, 2018 Jul-Aug.
7.	Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Burns JC. Kawasaki Disease. [Review]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 67(14):1738-49, 2016 Apr 12.
8.	Murphy DJ, Aghayev A, Steigner ML. Vascular CT and MRI: a practical guide to imaging protocols. Insights Imaging 2018;9:215-36.
9.	Jiemy WF, Heeringa P, Kamps JAAM, van der Laken CJ, Slart RHJA, Brouwer E. Positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging of macrophages in large vessel vasculitis: Current status and future prospects. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 17(7):715-726, 2018 Jul.
10.	Martinez-Rodriguez I, Martinez-Amador N, Banzo I, et al. Assessment of aortitis by semiquantitative analysis of 180-min 18F-FDG PET/CT acquisition images. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 41(12):2319-24, 2014 Dec.
11.	Rosenblum JS, Quinn KA, Rimland CA, Mehta NN, Ahlman MA, Grayson PC. Clinical Factors Associated with Time-Specific Distribution of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose in Large-Vessel Vasculitis. Sci Rep 2019;9:15180.
12.	Bucerius J, Mani V, Moncrieff C, et al. Optimizing 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging of vessel wall inflammation: the impact of 18F-FDG circulation time, injected dose, uptake parameters, and fasting blood glucose levels. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine & Molecular Imaging. 41(2):369-83, 2014 Feb.
13.	Pelletier-Galarneau M, Ruddy TD. PET/CT for Diagnosis and Management of Large-Vessel Vasculitis. Curr Cardiol Rep 2019;21:34.
14.	Sammel AM, Hsiao E, Schembri G, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography of the Head, Neck, and Chest for Giant Cell Arteritis: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Cross-Sectional Study. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1319-28.
15.	Nielsen BD, Hansen IT, Kramer S, et al. Simple dichotomous assessment of cranial artery inflammation by conventional 18F-FDG PET/CT shows high accuracy for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: a case-control study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 46(1):184-193, 2019 01.
16.	Guggenberger KV, Bley TA. Magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance angiography in large-vessel vasculitides. [Review]. Clinical & Experimental Rheumatology. 36 Suppl 114(5):103-107, 2018 Sep-Oct.Clin Exp Rheumatol. 36 Suppl 114(5):103-107, 2018 Sep-Oct.
17.	Treitl KM, Maurus S, Sommer NN, et al. 3D-black-blood 3T-MRI for the diagnosis of thoracic large vessel vasculitis: A feasibility study. Eur Radiol. 27(5):2119-2128, 2017 May.
18.	Liu M, Liu W, Li H, Shu X, Tao X, Zhai Z. Evaluation of takayasu arteritis with delayed contrast-enhanced MR imaging by a free-breathing 3D IR turbo FLASH. Medicine (Baltimore). 96(51):e9284, 2017 Dec.
19.	Marinelli KC, Ahlman MA, Quinn KA, Malayeri AA, Evers R, Grayson PC. Stenosis and Pseudostenosis of the Upper Extremity Arteries in Large-Vessel Vasculitis. ACR Open Rheumatol 2019;1:156-63.
20.	Klink T, Geiger J, Both M, et al. Giant cell arteritis: diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging of superficial cranial arteries in initial diagnosis-results from a multicenter trial. Radiology. 273(3):844-52, 2014 Dec.Radiology. 273(3):844-52, 2014 Dec.
21.	Rheaume M, Rebello R, Pagnoux C, et al. High-Resolution Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Scalp Arteries for the Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 69(1):161-168, 2017 01.Arthritis rheumatol.. 69(1):161-168, 2017 01.
22.	Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Duftner C, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 77(5):636-643, 2018 05.Ann Rheum Dis. 77(5):636-643, 2018 05.
23.	Monti S, Floris A, Ponte C, et al. The use of ultrasound to assess giant cell arteritis: review of the current evidence and practical guide for the rheumatologist. [Review]. Rheumatology (Oxford). 57(2):227-235, 2018 Feb 01.
24.	Prieto-Gonzalez S, Arguis P, Cid MC. Imaging in systemic vasculitis. [Review]. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 27(1):53-62, 2015 Jan.
25.	Prieto-Gonzalez S, Garcia-Martinez A, Tavera-Bahillo I, et al. Effect of glucocorticoid treatment on computed tomography angiography detected large-vessel inflammation in giant-cell arteritis. A prospective, longitudinal study. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(5):e486, 2015 Feb.
26.	Berthod PE, Aho-Glele S, Ornetti P, et al. CT analysis of the aorta in giant-cell arteritis: a case-control study. Eur Radiol. 28(9):3676-3684, 2018 Sep.
27.	Hartlage GR, Palios J, Barron BJ, et al. Multimodality imaging of aortitis. [Review]. Jacc: Cardiovascular Imaging. 7(6):605-19, 2014 Jun.JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 7(6):605-19, 2014 Jun.
28.	Espigol-Frigole G, Prieto-Gonzalez S, Alba MA, et al. Advances in the diagnosis of large vessel vasculitis. [Review]. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 41(1):125-40, ix, 2015.
29.	Barra L, Kanji T, Malette J, Pagnoux C, CanVasc. Imaging modalities for the diagnosis and disease activity assessment of Takayasu's arteritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 17(2):175-187, 2018 Feb.
30.	Kermani TA, Diab S, Sreih AG, et al. Arterial lesions in giant cell arteritis: A longitudinal study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 48(4):707-713, 2019 02.
31.	Garcia-Martinez A, Arguis P, Prieto-Gonzalez S, et al. Prospective long term follow-up of a cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis screened for aortic structural damage (aneurysm or dilatation). Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 73(10):1826-32, 2014 Oct.
32.	Muto G, Yamashita H, Takahashi Y, et al. Large vessel vasculitis in elderly patients: early diagnosis and steroid-response evaluation with FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT. Rheumatol Int. 34(11):1545-54, 2014 Nov.
33.	Slart RHJA, Writing group, Reviewer group, et al. FDG-PET/CT(A) imaging in large vessel vasculitis and polymyalgia rheumatica: joint procedural recommendation of the EANM, SNMMI, and the PET Interest Group (PIG), and endorsed by the ASNC. [Review]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 45(7):1250-1269, 2018 07.
34.	Vaidyanathan S, Chattopadhyay A, Mackie SL, Scarsbrook AF. Comparative effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET-CT and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of suspected large-vessel vasculitis. Br J Radiol. 91(1089):20180247, 2018 Sep.
35.	Lariviere D, Benali K, Coustet B, et al. Positron emission tomography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis: A real-life prospective study. Medicine (Baltimore). 95(30):e4146, 2016 Jul.
36.	de Boysson H, Dumont A, Liozon E, et al. Giant-cell arteritis: concordance study between aortic CT angiography and FDG-PET/CT in detection of large-vessel involvement. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(13):2274-2279, 2017 Dec.
37.	Hommada M, Mekinian A, Brillet PY, et al. Aortitis in giant cell arteritis: diagnosis with FDG PET/CT and agreement with CT angiography. Autoimmun Rev. 16(11):1131-1137, 2017 Nov.
38.	Olthof SC, Krumm P, Henes J, et al. Imaging giant cell arteritis and Aortitis in contrast enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT: Which imaging score correlates best with laboratory inflammation markers?. Eur J Radiol. 99:94-102, 2018 Feb.
39.	Muratore F, Pipitone N, Salvarani C, Schmidt WA. Imaging of vasculitis: State of the art. [Review]. Best Practice & Research in Clinical Rheumatology. 30(4):688-706, 2016 08.Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 30(4):688-706, 2016 08.
40.	Duftner C, Dejaco C, Sepriano A, Falzon L, Schmidt WA, Ramiro S. Imaging in diagnosis, outcome prediction and monitoring of large vessel vasculitis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis informing the EULAR recommendations. RMD Open 2018;4:e000612.
41.	Kang EJ, Kim SM, Choe YH, Lee GY, Lee KN, Kim DK. Takayasu arteritis: assessment of coronary arterial abnormalities with 128-section dual-source CT angiography of the coronary arteries and aorta. Radiology. 270(1):74-81, 2014 Jan.
42.	Stellingwerff MD, Brouwer E, Lensen KJ, et al. Different Scoring Methods of FDG PET/CT in Giant Cell Arteritis: Need for Standardization. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(37):e1542, 2015 Sep.
43.	Lensen KD, Comans EF, Voskuyl AE, et al. Large-vessel vasculitis: interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Biomed Res Int. 2015:914692, 2015.
44.	Besson FL, de Boysson H, Parienti JJ, Bouvard G, Bienvenu B, Agostini D. Towards an optimal semiquantitative approach in giant cell arteritis: an (18)F-FDG PET/CT case-control study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 41(1):155-66, 2014 Jan.
45.	Castellani M, Vadrucci M, Florimonte L, Caronni M, Benti R, Bonara P. 18F-FDG uptake in main arterial branches of patients with large vessel vasculitis: visual and semiquantitative analysis. Ann Nucl Med. 30(6):409-20, 2016 Jul.
46.	Grayson PC, Alehashemi S, Bagheri AA, et al. 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography As an Imaging Biomarker in a Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort of Patients With Large Vessel Vasculitis. Arthritis rheumatol.. 70(3):439-449, 2018 03.
47.	Ahlman MA, Vigneault DM, Sandfort V, et al. Internal tissue references for 18Fluorodeoxyglucose vascular inflammation imaging: Implications for cardiovascular risk stratification and clinical trials. PLoS ONE. 12(11):e0187995, 2017.
48.	Puppo C, Massollo M, Paparo F, et al. Giant cell arteritis: a systematic review of the qualitative and semiquantitative methods to assess vasculitis with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. [Review]. Biomed Res Int. 2014:574248, 2014.
49.	Soussan M, Nicolas P, Schramm C, et al. Management of large-vessel vasculitis with FDG-PET: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Medicine (Baltimore). 94(14):e622, 2015 Apr.
50.	Lee SW, Kim SJ, Seo Y, Jeong SY, Ahn BC, Lee J. F-18 FDG PET for assessment of disease activity of large vessel vasculitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2019;26:59-67.
51.	Luqmani R, Lee E, Singh S, et al. The Role of Ultrasound Compared to Biopsy of Temporal Arteries in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis (TABUL): a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study. Health Technol Assess. 20(90):1-238, 2016 11.
52.	Leccisotti L, Lorusso M, Feudo V, Gremese E, Giordano A. Diagnostic performance of FDG PET in large vessel vasculitis. Clinical and Translational Imaging 2019;7:415-25.
53.	Quinn KA, Ahlman MA, Malayeri AA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance angiography and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in large-vessel vasculitis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 77(8):1165-1171, 2018 08.Ann Rheum Dis. 77(8):1165-1171, 2018 08.
54.	Einspieler I, Thurmel K, Eiber M. Fully integrated whole-body [18F]-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in therapy monitoring of giant cell arteritis. Eur Heart J 2016;37:576.
55.	de Boysson H, Liozon E, Lambert M, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the risk of subsequent aortic complications in giant-cell arteritis: A multicenter cohort of 130 patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 95(26):e3851, 2016 Jun.
56.	de Boysson H, Daumas A, Vautier M, et al. Large-vessel involvement and aortic dilation in giant-cell arteritis. A multicenter study of 549 patients. [Review]. Autoimmun Rev. 17(4):391-398, 2018 Apr.
57.	Dellavedova L, Carletto M, Faggioli P, et al. The prognostic value of baseline (18)F-FDG PET/CT in steroid-naive large-vessel vasculitis: introduction of volume-based parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 43(2):340-348, 2016 Feb.
58.	Santhosh S, Mittal BR, Gayana S, Bhattacharya A, Sharma A, Jain S. F-18 FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of Takayasu arteritis: an experience from the tropics. J Nucl Cardiol. 21(5):993-1000, 2014 Oct.
59.	Alibaz-Oner F, Dede F, Ones T, Turoglu HT, Direskeneli H. Patients with Takayasu's arteritis having persistent acute-phase response usually have an increased major vessel uptake by 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Mod Rheumatol. 25(5):752-5, 2015 Sep.
60.	Gomez L, Chaumet-Riffaud P, Noel N, et al. Effect of CRP value on 18F-FDG PET vascular positivity in Takayasu arteritis: a systematic review and per-patient based meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 45(4):575-581, 2018 04.
61.	Han Q, Liang Q, Kang F, Wang J, Wu Z, Zhu P. An increased major vessel uptake by 18F-FDG-PET/CT in NIH criteria inactive patients with Takayasu's arteritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 36 Suppl 111(2):88-92, 2018 Mar-Apr.
62.	Soriano A, Pazzola G, Boiardi L, et al. Distribution patterns of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in large vessels of Takayasu's and giant cell arteritis using positron emission tomography. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 36 Suppl 111(2):99-106, 2018 Mar-Apr.
63.	Incerti E, Tombetti E, Fallanca F, et al. 18F-FDG PET reveals unique features of large vessel inflammation in patients with Takayasu's arteritis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(7):1109-1118, 2017 Jul.
64.	Youngstein T, Tombetti E, Mukherjee J, et al. FDG Uptake by Prosthetic Arterial Grafts in Large Vessel Vasculitis Is Not Specific for Active Disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(9):1042-1052, 2017 09.
65.	Betrains A, Blockmans D. Use of (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the Diagnosis and Follow-up of Polymyalgia Rheumatica. PET Clin 2020;15:147-52.
66.	Prieto-Pena D, Martinez-Rodriguez I, Loricera J, et al. Predictors of positive 18F-FDG PET/CT-scan for large vessel vasculitis in patients with persistent polymyalgia rheumatica. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 48(4):720-727, 2019 Feb.
67.	Mestre-Torres J, Simo-Perdigo M, Martinez-Valle F, Navales I, Loureiro-Amigo J, Solans-Laque R. Risk of ischaemic events at giant cell arteritis diagnosis according to PET/CT findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:1626-32.
68.	Michailidou D, Rosenblum JS, Rimland CA, Marko J, Ahlman MA, Grayson PC. Clinical symptoms and associated vascular imaging findings in Takayasu's arteritis compared to giant cell arteritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 79(2):262-267, 2020 02.Ann Rheum Dis. 79(2):262-267, 2020 02.
69.	Hay B, Mariano-Goulart D, Bourdon A, et al. Diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG PET-CT for large vessel involvement assessment in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis and negative temporal artery biopsy. Ann Nucl Med 2019;33:512-20.
70.	Clifford AH, Murphy EM, Burrell SC, et al. Positron Emission Tomography/Computerized Tomography in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Giant Cell Arteritis Who Are Taking Glucocorticoids. J Rheumatol. 44(12):1859-1866, 2017 Dec.
71.	Prieto-Gonzalez S, Depetris M, Garcia-Martinez A, et al. Positron emission tomography assessment of large vessel inflammation in patients with newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis: a prospective, case-control study. Ann Rheum Dis. 73(7):1388-92, 2014 Jul.
72.	Nielsen BD, Gormsen LC, Hansen IT, Keller KK, Therkildsen P, Hauge EM. Three days of high-dose glucocorticoid treatment attenuates large-vessel 18F-FDG uptake in large-vessel giant cell arteritis but with a limited impact on diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 45(7):1119-1128, 2018 07.
73.	Adler S, Sprecher M, Wermelinger F, Klink T, Bonel H, Villiger PM. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in large-vessel vasculitis. Swiss Medical Weekly. 147:w14397, 2017.Swiss Med Wkly. 147:w14397, 2017.
74.	Sun Y, Ma L, Ji Z, et al. Value of whole-body contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography with vessel wall imaging in quantitative assessment of disease activity and follow-up examination in Takayasu's arteritis. Clin Rheumatol. 35(3):685-93, 2016 Mar.
75.	Tombetti E, Mason JC. Application of imaging techniques for Takayasu arteritis. [Review]. Presse Med. 46(7-8 Pt 2):e215-e223, 2017 Jul - Aug.
76.	Kato Y, Terashima M, Ohigashi H, et al. Vessel Wall Inflammation of Takayasu Arteritis Detected by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Association with Disease Distribution and Activity. PLoS ONE. 10(12):e0145855, 2015.
77.	Loffler C, Hoffend J, Benck U, Kramer BK, Bergner R. The value of ultrasound in diagnosing extracranial large-vessel vasculitis compared to FDG-PET/CT: A retrospective study. Clin Rheumatol. 36(9):2079-2086, 2017 Sep.
78.	Schmidt WA.. Ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of giant cell arteritis. [Review]. Rheumatology (Oxford). 57(suppl_2):ii22-ii31, 2018 02 01.
79.	Schmidt WA, Blockmans D. Investigations in systemic vasculitis - The role of imaging. [Review]. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 32(1):63-82, 2018 02.
80.	Diamantopoulos AP, Haugeberg G, Hetland H, Soldal DM, Bie R, Myklebust G. Diagnostic value of color Doppler ultrasonography of temporal arteries and large vessels in giant cell arteritis: a consecutive case series. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:113-9.
81.	Aschwanden M, Imfeld S, Staub D, et al. The ultrasound compression sign to diagnose temporal giant cell arteritis shows an excellent interobserver agreement. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 33(2 Suppl 89):S-113-5, 2015 Mar-Apr.
82.	Chrysidis S, Duftner C, Dejaco C, et al. Definitions and reliability assessment of elementary ultrasound lesions in giant cell arteritis: a study from the OMERACT Large Vessel Vasculitis Ultrasound Working Group. RMD Open 2018;4:e000598.
83.	Fan W, Zhu J, Li J, Zhang W, Li C. Ultrasound morphological changes in the carotid wall of Takayasu's arteritis: monitor of disease progression. Int Angiol. 35(6):586-592, 2016 Dec.
84.	Germano G, Macchioni P, Possemato N, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound of the Carotid Artery in Patients With Large Vessel Vasculitis: Correlation With Positron Emission Tomography Findings. Arthritis care & research. 69(1):143-149, 2017 01.
85.	Czihal M, Piller A, Schroettle A, et al. Impact of cranial and axillary/subclavian artery involvement by color duplex sonography on response to treatment in giant cell arteritis. J Vasc Surg. 61(5):1285-91, 2015 May.
86.	Singhal M, Gupta P, Sharma A. Imaging in small and medium vessel vasculitis. [Review]. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases. 22 Suppl 1:78-85, 2019 Jan.Int J Rheum Dis. 22 Suppl 1:78-85, 2019 Jan.
87.	JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for diagnosis and management of cardiovascular sequelae in Kawasaki disease (JCS 2013). Digest version. Circ J 2014;78:2521-62.
88.	Singhal M, Gupta P, Sharma A, Lal A, Rathi M, Khandelwal N. Role of multidetector abdominal CT in the evaluation of abnormalities in polyarteritis nodosa. Clin Radiol. 71(3):222-7, 2016 Mar.
89.	Heller MT, Shah A, Furlan A. MDCT of acute conditions affecting the mesenteric vasculature. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 69(7):765-72, 2014 Jul.
90.	Yong YR, Lath N, Cheah FK, Ng YL. Pictorial essay: Uncommon causes of coronary artery encasement. [Review]. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 10(5):424-9, 2016 Sep-Oct.
91.	Pipitone NAM, Versari A, Salvarani C. Usefulness of PET in recognizing and managing vasculitides. [Review]. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 30(1):24-29, 2018 Jan.
92.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.