OBJECTIVES: To explore if the reliability of synovitis assessment by unenhanced MRI is influenced by different MRI field-strengths, coil types and image resolutions in RA patients. METHODS: Forty-one RA patients and 12 healthy controls underwent hand MRI (wrist and 2(nd)--5(th) metacarpophalangeal joints) at 4 different field-strengths (0.23 T/0.6 T/1.5 T/3.0 T) on the same day. Seven protocols using a STIR sequence with different field-strengths, coils (flex coils/dedicated phased-array extremity coils) and resolution were applied and scored blindly for synovitis (OMERACT-RAMRIS method). A 1.5 T post-contrast T1-weighted sequence was used as gold standard reference. RESULTS: Fair-good agreement (ICC=0.38--0.72) between the standard reference and the different STIR protocols (best agreement with extremity coil and small voxel size at 1.5 T). The accuracy for presence/absence of synovitis was very high per person (0.80--1.0), and moderate-high per joint (0.63--0.85), whereas exact agreements on scores were moderate (0.50--0.66). The intrareader agreement (15 patients and 3 controls) on presence/absence of synovitis was very high (0.87--1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced MRI using STIR sequence is only moderately reliable for assessing hand synovitis in RA, when contrast-enhanced MRI is considered the gold standard reference. Contrast injection, field strength and coil type influence synovitis assessment, and should be considered before performing MRI in clinical trials and practice. KEY POINTS: • STIR is only moderately reliable for synovitis assessment, compared with post-contrast-T1-w. • Contrast injection, field strength, and coil type influence synovitis assessment. • Contrast injection is recommended for reliable and reproducible hand synovitis assessment.
OBJECTIVES: To explore if the reliability of synovitis assessment by unenhanced MRI is influenced by different MRI field-strengths, coil types and image resolutions in RApatients. METHODS: Forty-one RApatients and 12 healthy controls underwent hand MRI (wrist and 2(nd)--5(th) metacarpophalangeal joints) at 4 different field-strengths (0.23 T/0.6 T/1.5 T/3.0 T) on the same day. Seven protocols using a STIR sequence with different field-strengths, coils (flex coils/dedicated phased-array extremity coils) and resolution were applied and scored blindly for synovitis (OMERACT-RAMRIS method). A 1.5 T post-contrast T1-weighted sequence was used as gold standard reference. RESULTS: Fair-good agreement (ICC=0.38--0.72) between the standard reference and the different STIR protocols (best agreement with extremity coil and small voxel size at 1.5 T). The accuracy for presence/absence of synovitis was very high per person (0.80--1.0), and moderate-high per joint (0.63--0.85), whereas exact agreements on scores were moderate (0.50--0.66). The intrareader agreement (15 patients and 3 controls) on presence/absence of synovitis was very high (0.87--1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Unenhanced MRI using STIR sequence is only moderately reliable for assessing hand synovitis in RA, when contrast-enhanced MRI is considered the gold standard reference. Contrast injection, field strength and coil type influence synovitis assessment, and should be considered before performing MRI in clinical trials and practice. KEY POINTS: • STIR is only moderately reliable for synovitis assessment, compared with post-contrast-T1-w. • Contrast injection, field strength, and coil type influence synovitis assessment. • Contrast injection is recommended for reliable and reproducible hand synovitis assessment.
Authors: M B Axelsen; M Stoltenberg; R P Poggenborg; O Kubassova; M Boesen; H Bliddal; K Hørslev-Petersen; L G Hanson; M Østergaard Journal: Scand J Rheumatol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Marissa Lassere; Fiona McQueen; Mikkel Østergaard; Philip Conaghan; Ron Shnier; Charles Peterfy; Mette Klarlund; Paul Bird; Philip O'Connor; Neal Stewart; Paul Emery; Harry Genant; John Edmonds Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Charles Peterfy; John Edmonds; Marissa Lassere; Philip Conaghan; Mikkel Østergaard; Fiona McQueen; Harry Genant; Mette Klarlund; Bo Ejbjerg; Neal Stewart; Paul Bird; Ron Shnier; Philip O'Connor; Paul Emery Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Bachir Taouli; Souhil Zaim; Charles G Peterfy; John A Lynch; Alexander Stork; Ali Guermazi; Bo Fan; Kenneth H Fye; Harry K Genant Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Annette von Drygalski; Randy E Moore; Sonha Nguyen; Richard F W Barnes; Lena M Volland; Tudor H Hughes; Jiang Du; Eric Y Chang Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: John C Waterton; Meilien Ho; Lars H Nordenmark; Martin Jenkins; Julie DiCarlo; Gwenael Guillard; Caleb Roberts; Giovanni Buonaccorsi; Geoffrey J M Parker; Michael A Bowes; Charles Peterfy; Herbert Kellner; Peter C Taylor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: D I Krijbolder; M Verstappen; F Wouters; L R Lard; Pdm de Buck; J J Veris-van Dieren; J L Bloem; M Reijnierse; Ahm van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Scand J Rheumatol Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 3.057
Authors: Charlotte M Nusman; Robert Hemke; Marc A Benninga; Dieneke Schonenberg-Meinema; Angelika Kindermann; Marion A J van Rossum; J Merlijn van den Berg; Mario Maas; Taco W Kuijpers Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 5.315