| Literature DB >> 28078285 |
Shaoqi Chen1, Yukai Wang2, Guohong Zhang3, Shigao Chen4.
Abstract
A total of 136 subjects (51 SS patients, 35 sicca syndrome patients without SS, and 50 healthy volunteers) were enrolled in this study. The mean SWV value for salivary glands of SS patients was statistically higher than that of controls (2.81 ± 0.66 m/s versus 1.85 ± 0.28 m/s for parotid glands and 2.29 ± 0.34 m/s versus 1.82 ± 0.25 m/s for submandibular glands, resp.). Combining SWV values of parotid and submandibular glands gives a sensitivity of 88.2% (95% CI: 76.1-95.6%) and specificity of 96.0% (95% CI: 86.3-99.5%) at the cutoff point of 2.19 m/s, with an AUROC of 0.954 (95% CI: 0.893-0.986). In addition, combining SGUS score and SWV value yields a sensitivity of 98.0% (95% CI: 89.6-100%), specificity of 90.0% (95% CI: 78.2-96.7%), and AUROC of 0.962 (95% CI: 0.904-0.990). Classification tree considering the sequential use of SGUS score and SWV value achieved 92.1% accuracy for diagnosis of SS. Similarly, the ROC curve of combined SGUS scores and SWV values yields an AUROC of 0.954 (95% CI: 0.885-0.987), sensitivity of 97.1% (95% CI: 85.1-99.9%), and specificity of 92.2% (95% CI: 81.1-97.8%) for separating sicca syndrome patients (without SS) from SS patients. Combining SGUS and VTQ provides a promising tool for diagnosis of SS.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28078285 PMCID: PMC5203879 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2793898
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Representative B-mode ultrasound images for salivary glands: score 0 = complete homogeneity, score 1 = mild inhomogeneity, score 2 = evident inhomogeneity, and score 3 = gross inhomogeneity.
Figure 2Representative images of parotid glands with shear wave velocity (SWV) measurements using Virtual Touch Quantification (VTQ). (a) SWV value was 1.93 m/s in a healthy volunteer and (b) 2.77 m/s in a SS patient.
Figure 3ROC curves with the optimal cutoff value, sensitivity, and specificity using (a) shear wave velocity (SWV) value of parotid glands; (b) SWV value of submandibular glands; (c) mean SWV value of parotid and submandibular glands; and (d) combination of SGUS score and mean SWV value.
Figure 4Classification tree for combination of SGUS score and mean SWV value. Each terminal node specifies numbers and percentages of SS and controls. The resulting correct classification rate was 92.1%.