PURPOSE: To evaluate whether intravenous gadolinium (Gd) contrast administration can be eliminated when evaluating synovitis and tenosynovitis in early arthritis patients, thereby decreasing imaging time, cost, and invasiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wrist MRIs of 93 early arthritis patients were evaluated by two readers for synovitis of the radioulnar, radiocarpal, and intercarpal joints, according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring method (RAMRIS), and for tenosynovitis in ten compartments. Scores of MRI images without Gd contrast enhancement were compared to scores obtained when evaluating all, including contrast-enhanced, MRI images as reference. Subsequently, a literature review and pooled analysis of data from the present and two previous studies were performed. RESULTS: At the individual joint/tendon level, sensitivity to detect synovitis without Gd contrast was 91 % and 72 % for the two readers, respectively, with a specificity of 51 % and 81 %. For tenosynovitis, the sensitivity was 67 % and 54 %, respectively, with a specificity of 87 % and 91 %. Pooled data analysis revealed an overall sensitivity of 81 % and specificity of 50 % for evaluation of synovitis. Variations in tenosynovitis scoring systems hindered pooled analyses. CONCLUSION: Eliminating Gd contrast administration resulted in low specificity for synovitis and low sensitivity for tenosynovitis, indicating that Gd contrast administration remains essential for an optimal assessment. KEY POINTS: • Eliminating gadolinium contrast administration results in low specificity for synovitis • For tenosynovitis, sensitivity is low without gadolinium contrast administration • Gadolinium contrast administration remains essential for evaluating synovitis and tenosynovitis in early arthritis.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether intravenous gadolinium (Gd) contrast administration can be eliminated when evaluating synovitis and tenosynovitis in early arthritispatients, thereby decreasing imaging time, cost, and invasiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wrist MRIs of 93 early arthritispatients were evaluated by two readers for synovitis of the radioulnar, radiocarpal, and intercarpal joints, according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Scoring method (RAMRIS), and for tenosynovitis in ten compartments. Scores of MRI images without Gd contrast enhancement were compared to scores obtained when evaluating all, including contrast-enhanced, MRI images as reference. Subsequently, a literature review and pooled analysis of data from the present and two previous studies were performed. RESULTS: At the individual joint/tendon level, sensitivity to detect synovitis without Gd contrast was 91 % and 72 % for the two readers, respectively, with a specificity of 51 % and 81 %. For tenosynovitis, the sensitivity was 67 % and 54 %, respectively, with a specificity of 87 % and 91 %. Pooled data analysis revealed an overall sensitivity of 81 % and specificity of 50 % for evaluation of synovitis. Variations in tenosynovitis scoring systems hindered pooled analyses. CONCLUSION: Eliminating Gd contrast administration resulted in low specificity for synovitis and low sensitivity for tenosynovitis, indicating that Gd contrast administration remains essential for an optimal assessment. KEY POINTS: • Eliminating gadolinium contrast administration results in low specificity for synovitis • For tenosynovitis, sensitivity is low without gadolinium contrast administration • Gadolinium contrast administration remains essential for evaluating synovitis and tenosynovitis in early arthritis.
Authors: D Loeuille; N Sauliere; J Champigneulle; A C Rat; A Blum; I Chary-Valckenaere Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Wouter Stomp; Annemarie Krabben; Désirée van der Heijde; Tom W J Huizinga; Johan L Bloem; Annette H M van der Helm-van Mil; Monique Reijnierse Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: A Krabben; W Stomp; T W J Huizinga; D van der Heijde; J L Bloem; M Reijnierse; A H M van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Andreas Boss; Petros Martirosian; Jan Fritz; Ina Kötter; Jörg C Henes; Claus D Claussen; Fritz Schick; Marius Horger Journal: MAGMA Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Robert Hemke; Taco W Kuijpers; J Merlijn van den Berg; Mira van Veenendaal; Koert M Dolman; Marion A J van Rossum; Mario Maas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Iris Eshed; Eugen Feist; Christian E Althoff; Bernd Hamm; Eli Konen; Gerd-R Burmester; Marina Backhaus; Kay-Geert A Hermann Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos; Torsten Almén; Marie-France Bellin; Michele Bertolotto; Georg Bongartz; Olivier Clement; Peter Leander; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Peter Reimer; Fulvio Stacul; Aart van der Molen; Judith A W Webb Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anouk M Barendregt; E Charlotte van Gulik; Paul F C Groot; Koert M Dolman; J Merlijn van den Berg; Amara Nassar-Sheikh Rashid; Dieneke Schonenberg-Meinema; Cristina Lavini; Karen Rosendahl; Robert Hemke; Taco W Kuijpers; Mario Maas; Charlotte M Nusman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2019-02-01
Authors: Anouk M Barendregt; E Charlotte van Gulik; Cristina Lavini; Charlotte M Nusman; J Merlijn van den Berg; Dieneke Schonenberg-Meinema; Koert M Dolman; Taco W Kuijpers; Robert Hemke; Mario Maas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Yousra J Dakkak; Aleid C Boer; Debbie M Boeters; Ellis Niemantsverdriet; Monique Reijnierse; Annette H M van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.156