| Literature DB >> 31752877 |
Joshua L Bennett1, Amanda Wood1, Nicola Smith2, Ravi Mistry3, Karen Allen1, Sharmila Jandial1, John D Tuckett4, S Claire Gowdy5, Helen E Foster1,2, Flora McErlane1,2, Kieren G Hollingsworth6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the most common chronic rheumatic disease of childhood, is characterised by synovitis. Clinical assessments of synovitis are imperfect, relying on composite and indirect measures of disease activity including clinician-reported measures, patient-reported measures and blood markers. Contrast-enhanced MRI is a more sensitive synovitis assessment technique but clinical utility is currently limited by availability and inter-observer variation. Improved quantitative MRI techniques may enable future development of more stringent MRI-defined remission criteria. The objective of this study was to determine the utility and feasibility of quantitative MRI measurement of synovial volume and vascularity in JIA before and twelve weeks after intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (IAGI) of the knee and to assess the acceptability of MRI to participating families.Entities:
Keywords: Disease activity assessment; Intra-articular glucocorticoid injection; Juvenile idiopathic arthritis; Quantitative MRI; Remission; Synovial volume; Synovitis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31752877 PMCID: PMC6873560 DOI: 10.1186/s12969-019-0377-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J ISSN: 1546-0096 Impact factor: 3.054
Fig. 1Procedure for calculating the synovial volume, shown on one slice of the imaged knee volume. The acquired data are (a) the multi-slice T1-weighted FS TSE pre-contrast and (b) post-contrast showing synovial hypertrophy. (c) These image stacks are subtracted to produce a stack of difference images which highlight the signal change caused by contrast uptake compared to other tissues; (d) thresholding these values helps to segment the enhancing synovium from structures with low uptake, though blood vessels remain visible. The magic wand tool of ImageJ is used to select the enhancing synovium; the volume is calculated by summing across the image stack. FS TSE, fat saturated turbo spin echo
Fig. 2Percentage gadolinium signal increase across the segmented synovial volume for subject 5. The contrast is injected at the time shown in the arrow. The initial uptake rate (%/s) is calculated from the gradient of the line of the first two positive signal increases and the signal enhancement (%) is the mean of the last four points. This subject had a change in synovial volume from 72.2cm3 pre-treatment to 0.7cm3 post-treatment. The initial uptake shown reduces from 2.83%/s to 0.51%/s post-treatment and signal enhancement reduces from 190 to 90%
Patient characteristics and summary of clinical assessments at baseline (B) and follow-up (F)
| Subject | Age | Gender | Disease duration (months) | ILAR Subtype & Systemic Medication | Active joint count | Clinician assessed disease activity in injected knee (Y/N) | JADAS10 | cJADAS10 | ESR | CHAQ | Pain global score (cm) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | |||||
| 1 | 12.3 | F | 0 | psoriatic m | 1 | 1lk | Y | Y | n/a | 5.5 | 9.3 | 5.5 | n/a | 10 | 1.4 | n/a | 6.1 | 4.0 |
| 2 | 7.7 | F | 27 | per oligo m | 2 | – | Y | – | 7.0 | – | 7.0 | – | 20 | – | 0.3 | – | 3.2 | – |
| 3 | 16.0 | F | 8 | per oligo z | 2lk, | 0 | Y | N | 8.4 | 0.0 | 7.8 | 0.0 | 26 | 16 | 0.5 | 0 | 3.3 | 0.0 |
| 4 | 11.6 | M | 140 | per oligo | 1 | 1rk | Y | Y | 4.2 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 5 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 3.6 | 0.0 |
| 5 | 13.4 | M | 53 | ext oligo | 1 | 1rk | Y | N | 7.1 | n/a | 7.1 | 3.0 | 2 | n/a | 0.0 | 0 | 3.0 | 1.5 |
| 6 | 16.2 | F | 6 | RF+ poly m,d | 2lk, | 0 | Y | N | 7.2 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 5 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 2.9 | 0.9 |
| 7 | 13.6 | F | 54 | per oligo d | 2 | 0 | Y | N | 12.4 | 0.0 | 11.0 | 0.0 | 34 | 15 | 0.5 | 0 | 6.3 | 0.0 |
| 8 | 8.1 | M | 0 | per oligo | 2lk, | 2rk,ra | Y | Y | 18.8 | 8.9 | 15.6 | 8.9 | 52 | 9 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 10.0 | 6.8 |
| 9 | 13.4 | M | 74 | ext oligo d | 2 | 0 | Y | N | 10.8 | 1.2 | 10.0 | 1.2 | 28 | 15 | 1.3 | n/a | 6.5 | 6.1 |
| 10 | 15.3 | F | 92 | RF- poly | 1 | 0 | Y | N | 9.2 | n/a | 9.2 | 4.2 | 16 | n/a | 1.3 | n/a | 7.1 | 3.4 |
| 11 | 14.3 | M | 14 | per oligo | 1 | 0 | Y | N | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | n/a | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Median | 13.4 | 27 | 1.5 | 0.0† | – | – | 8.5 | 1.6* | – | – | – | – | 4.9 | 1.2$ | ||||
| IQR | 2.8 | 57 | 1.0 | 1.0 | – | – | 2.7 | 3.9 | – | – | – | – | 3.4 | 3.9 | ||||
Medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) comparing baseline and follow-up exclude subject 2 who was lost to follow-up. Where measurements are not available for other individuals, medians have not been provided. †p < 0.03, * p = 0.005, $ p = 0.008 at follow-up compared to baseline. Key: per/ext. oligo = persistent/extended oligoarticular, RF+/RF- poly = rheumatoid factor positive/negative polyarticular, JADAS10 = juvenile arthritis disease activity score (10 joints), cJADAS10 = clinical juvenile arthritis disease activity score (10 joints), ESR = erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CHAQ = child health assessment questionnaire, n/a = not available. For active joint counts, superscripts specify joints (lk = left knee, rk = right knee, ra = right ankle). The imaged knee is underlined. Systemic medication: m = methotrexate, z = azathioprine, d = adalimumab
Fig. 3The JADAS scores for the subjects at baseline and follow-up MRI scanning. Column shading indicates the relative contribution of the four JADAS components. The overall score is often dominated by the patient/parent global assessment, with no clear relationship to the physician assessment. There was no follow-up data available for subject 2, and blood tests were not clinically indicated for subject 1 at baseline and subjects 5 and 10 at follow-up. JADAS, juvenile arthritis disease activity score; IAGI, intra-articular glucocorticoid injection; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate
Quantitative MRI results at baseline (B) and follow-up (F)
| Subject | Synovial volume (cm3) | Maximum uptake rate (%/s) | Signal enhancement (%) | Radiologist reports synovial enhancement beyond normal limits (Y/N) | Clinician assessed disease activity in injected knee (Y /N) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | B | F | |
| 1 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 116 | 0 | Y | N | Y | Y (rpt IAGI) |
| 2 | 0.6 | – | 0.5 | – | 35 | – | N | – | Y | – |
| 3 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 57 | 0 | N | N | Y | N |
| 4 | 51.2 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 148 | 109 | Y | N | Y | Y (rpt IAGI) |
| 5 | 72.2 | 0.7 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 190 | 90 | Y | N | Y | N |
| 6 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10 | 6 | N | N | Y | N |
| 7 | 92.2 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 225 | 0 | Y | N | Y | N |
| 8 | 101.6 | 1.9 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 157 | 126 | Y | N | Y | Y (rpt IAGI) |
| 9 | 87.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 228 | 0 | Y | N | Y | N |
| 10 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 95 | 0 | N | N | Y | N |
| 11 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 145 | 103 | N | N | Y | N |
| Median | 38.5 | 0.0† | 1.7 | 0.0$ | 147 | 3† | – | – | ||
| IQR | 82.1 | 0.2 | 3.3 | 0.5 | 82 | 100 | – | – | ||
Baseline medians and IQRs (interquartile ranges) exclude subject 2 who was lost to follow-up. † p = 0.005, $ p = 0.008 at follow-up compared to baseline. Key: rpt IAGI = repeat intra-articular glucocorticoid injection after follow-up
Fig. 4Samples of difference images comparing measured synovial volume before and after IAGI. The difference images were derived from the pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted FS TSE images to highlight the contrast uptake in the synovium for four subjects: (a) 12 year-old female (25.7cm3 vs. 0.0cm3), (b) 11 year-old male (51.2cm3 vs. 0.1cm3), (c) 16 year-old female (72.7cm3 vs. 0.7cm3) and (d) 8 year-old male (101.6cm3 vs. 1.9cm3). The whole synovial volume is quoted in each case, not just for the slice shown. FS TSE, fat saturated turbo spin echo
Themes and recommendations from the patient’s perspective. Five core themes relating to the patient experience emerged from the data and from this we identified the following recommendations for paediatric MRI
Theme 1: Clear expectations | |
Recommendations: • Provide detailed information to alleviate any concerns or uncertainties both prior to the scan and on the day itself. This should include detailed directions and guidance on what will happen on the day with enough information so the parent/carer can answer any questions the child may have. • Offer the opportunity to ask questions beforehand (e.g. telephone call from clinical team prior to appointment). • Provide the opportunity to view scanner beforehand. | |
Theme 2: Creation of relaxing environment | |
Recommendations: • Use trained paediatric staff to put both child and parent/carer at ease. Communication to be on a first name basis and whilst familiarity can add an extra layer of relaxation, it is also acceptable to be simply introduced on the day. • Use staff experienced in inserting cannulas in children to avoid extra stress that difficulties with their insertion can cause. • Give the opportunity for child to listen to music of their choice during the scan. • Give the option for parent/carer or member of staff to accompany child into scanner. • Ensure pace of appointment is not rushed and is led by the child and parent/ carer’s needs. • Care to be taken regarding scan setting wherever possible to reduce unnecessary concerns (e.g. having scan alongside cancer unit viewed as not ideal). | |
Theme 3: Child centred approach | |
Recommendations: • Direct discussion at child. • Provide child friendly information leaflets as well as parent versions. • Give the option for toys to distract child if required by child and parent/carer. • Provide ‘completion certificate’ at the end and postcard in the post. | |
Theme 4: Increased understanding of the condition | |
Recommendations: • Allow the opportunity to view images after the scan alongside detailed guidance on what the images show and where possible enable patients to take a copy (e.g. photo) they can show other family members, friends or teachers at school. | |
Theme 5: Linking in to current treatment plan(s) | |
Recommendations: • Link in to current treatment plan wherever possible. For example providing the opportunity to take bloods at the same time as giving contrast seen as useful especially since many children do not like needles. |