Table 3 Comparison of diagnostic modalities in GI-GVHD.
From: PET assessment of acute gastrointestinal graft versus host disease
Modality | Examples | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
Endoscopic biopsy | Flexible sigmoidoscopy and histology | Gold standard for histological confirmation; highly specific. | Suboptimal sensitivity due to sampling error (inaccessible sites, patchy involvement); 48–72 h turnaround time for biopsy results; procedural risk; minimal prognostic information. |
Conventional Imaging | CT, MR, US | Non-invasive, can evaluate inaccessible sites; sensitive; fast turnaround time for results; minimal patient risk. | Non-specific for GI-GVHD. |
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) | [18F]FDG [18F]GE-180 [18F]AraG [64Cu]OX40mAb | Non-invasive, can evaluate inaccessible sites; potential for high sensitivity and specificity by radiotracer selection; fast turnaround time for results; likely minimal patient risk, potential for GI-GVHD prediction and/or prognostication. | Cost of radiotracer investigation and/or production; radiotracer availability; requirement for radiotracer-specific quantitative assessment protocols; sensitivity/specificity for individual radiotracers needs evaluation in clinical trials. |
Blood- and/or stool- based biomarkers | REG3α, ST2, Faecal microbiome | Established link to GI-GVHD biology; predicts GI-GVHD onset and/or severity. | Diagnostic specificity, definition of “positive” test and optimal timing of measurement yet to be fully defined; turnaround time for individual patient results; requirement for validation in local populations. |