Objective: The aim was to evaluate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a tool for measuring treatment response in adolescents with enthesitis-related arthropathy (ERA). Methods: Twenty-two adolescents with ERA underwent routine MRI and DWI before and after TNF inhibitor therapy. Each patient's images were visually scored by two radiologists using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada system, and sacroiliac joint apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalized ADC (nADC) were measured for each patient. Therapeutic clinical response was defined as an improvement of ⩾ 30% physician global assessment and radiological response defined as ⩾ 2.5-point reduction in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score. We compared ADC and nADC changes in responders and non-responders using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Results: For both radiological and clinical definitions of response, reductions in ADC and nADC after treatment were greater in responders than in non-responders (for radiological response: ADC: P < 0.01; nADC: P = 0.055; for clinical response: ADC: P = 0.33; nADC: P = 0.089). ADC and nADC could predict radiological response with a high level of sensitivity and specificity and were moderately sensitive and specific predictors of clinical response (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: ADC: 0.97, nADC: 0.82 for radiological response; and ADC: 0.67, nADC: 0.78 for clinical response). Conclusion: DWI measurements reflect the response to TNF inhibitor treatment in ERA patients with sacroiliitis as defined using radiological criteria and may also reflect clinical response. DWI is more objective than visual scoring and has the potential to be automated. ADC/nADC could be used as biomarkers of sacroiliitis in the clinic and in clinical trials.
Objective: The aim was to evaluate diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a tool for measuring treatment response in adolescents with enthesitis-related arthropathy (ERA). Methods: Twenty-two adolescents with ERA underwent routine MRI and DWI before and after TNF inhibitor therapy. Each patient's images were visually scored by two radiologists using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada system, and sacroiliac joint apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalized ADC (nADC) were measured for each patient. Therapeutic clinical response was defined as an improvement of ⩾ 30% physician global assessment and radiological response defined as ⩾ 2.5-point reduction in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score. We compared ADC and nADC changes in responders and non-responders using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Results: For both radiological and clinical definitions of response, reductions in ADC and nADC after treatment were greater in responders than in non-responders (for radiological response: ADC: P < 0.01; nADC: P = 0.055; for clinical response: ADC: P = 0.33; nADC: P = 0.089). ADC and nADC could predict radiological response with a high level of sensitivity and specificity and were moderately sensitive and specific predictors of clinical response (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were as follows: ADC: 0.97, nADC: 0.82 for radiological response; and ADC: 0.67, nADC: 0.78 for clinical response). Conclusion: DWI measurements reflect the response to TNF inhibitor treatment in ERA patients with sacroiliitis as defined using radiological criteria and may also reflect clinical response. DWI is more objective than visual scoring and has the potential to be automated. ADC/nADC could be used as biomarkers of sacroiliitis in the clinic and in clinical trials.
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mustafa Yilmaz; Seval G Kendirli; Derya U Altintas; Gulbin B Karakoc; Ayfer Inal; Mehmet Kilic Journal: Pediatr Int Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 1.524
Authors: Nancy A Obuchowski; Anthony P Reeves; Erich P Huang; Xiao-Feng Wang; Andrew J Buckler; Hyun J Grace Kim; Huiman X Barnhart; Edward F Jackson; Maryellen L Giger; Gene Pennello; Alicia Y Toledano; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Tatiyana V Apanasovich; Paul E Kinahan; Kyle J Myers; Dmitry B Goldgof; Daniel P Barboriak; Robert J Gillies; Lawrence H Schwartz; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Walter P Maksymowych; Maxime Dougados; Désirée van der Heijde; Joachim Sieper; Jürgen Braun; Gustavo Citera; Filip Van den Bosch; Isabelle Logeart; Joseph Wajdula; Heather Jones; Lisa Marshall; Randi Bonin; Ron Pedersen; Bonnie Vlahos; Sameer Kotak; Jack F Bukowski Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Alexis Jones; Timothy J P Bray; Peter Mandl; Margaret A Hall-Craggs; Helena Marzo-Ortega; Pedro M Machado Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Jakob M Møller; Mikkel Østergaard; Henrik S Thomsen; Simon Krabbe; Inge J Sørensen; Bente Jensen; Ole Rintek Madsen; Mette Klarlund; Susanne J Pedersen Journal: Eur J Radiol Open Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Susan C Shelmerdine; Cheryl Main; John Ciaran Hutchinson; Dean Langan; Neil J Sebire; Owen J Arthurs Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Varvara Choida; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Bethany R Jebson; Corinne Fisher; Maria Leandro; Lucy R Wedderburn; Coziana Ciurtin Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Jakob Møllenbach Møller; Mikkel Østergaard; Henrik S Thomsen; Stine Hangaard; Inge J Sørensen; Ole Rintek Madsen; Susanne J Pedersen Journal: BJR Open Date: 2020-12-21
Authors: Jakob M Møller; Mikkel Østergaard; Henrik S Thomsen; Inge J Sørensen; Ole R Madsen; Susanne J Pedersen Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2020-03-13