D I Krijbolder1, M Verstappen1, F Wouters1, L R Lard2, Pdm de Buck3, J J Veris-van Dieren4, J L Bloem5, M Reijnierse5, Ahm van der Helm-van Mil1,6. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Rheumatology, LangeLand Hospital, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Rheumatology, Reumazorg Zuid West Nederland, Goes, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of small joints sensitively detects inflammation. This inflammation, and tenosynovitis in particular, has been shown to predict rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development in arthralgia patients. These data have predominantly been acquired on 1.0-1.5 T MRI. However, 3.0 T is now commonly used in practice. Evidence on the comparability of these field strengths is scarce and has never included subtle inflammation in arthralgia patients or tenosynovitis. Therefore, we assessed the comparability of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in detecting subclinical inflammation in arthralgia patients. METHOD: A total of 2968 locations (joints, bones, tendon sheaths) in the hands and forefeet of 28 patients with small-joint arthralgia, at risk for RA, were imaged on both 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI. Two blinded readers independently scored erosions, osteitis, synovitis, and tenosynovitis, in line with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS). Features were summed into inflammation (osteitis, synovitis, tenosynovitis) and RAMRIS (inflammation and erosions). Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous scores and after dichotomization into presence or absence of inflammation, on patient and location levels. RESULTS: Interreader ICCs were excellent (> 0.90). Comparing 1.5 and 3.0 T revealed an ICC of 0.90 for inflammation and RAMRIS. ICCs for individual inflammation features were: tenosynovitis 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.94), synovitis 0.65 (0.24-0.84), and osteitis 0.96 (0.91-0.98). Agreement was 83% for inflammation and 89% for RAMRIS. Analyses on the location level showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Agreement on subclinical inflammation between 1.5 T and 3.0 T was excellent. Although synovitis scores were slightly different, synovitis often occurs simultaneously with other inflammatory signs, suggesting that scientific results on the predictive value of MRI-detected inflammation for RA, obtained on 1.5 T MRI, can be generalized to 3.0 T MRI.
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of small joints sensitively detects inflammation. This inflammation, and tenosynovitis in particular, has been shown to predict rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development in arthralgia patients. These data have predominantly been acquired on 1.0-1.5 T MRI. However, 3.0 T is now commonly used in practice. Evidence on the comparability of these field strengths is scarce and has never included subtle inflammation in arthralgia patients or tenosynovitis. Therefore, we assessed the comparability of 1.5 T and 3.0 T in detecting subclinical inflammation in arthralgia patients. METHOD: A total of 2968 locations (joints, bones, tendon sheaths) in the hands and forefeet of 28 patients with small-joint arthralgia, at risk for RA, were imaged on both 1.5 and 3.0 T MRI. Two blinded readers independently scored erosions, osteitis, synovitis, and tenosynovitis, in line with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS). Features were summed into inflammation (osteitis, synovitis, tenosynovitis) and RAMRIS (inflammation and erosions). Agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous scores and after dichotomization into presence or absence of inflammation, on patient and location levels. RESULTS: Interreader ICCs were excellent (> 0.90). Comparing 1.5 and 3.0 T revealed an ICC of 0.90 for inflammation and RAMRIS. ICCs for individual inflammation features were: tenosynovitis 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.94), synovitis 0.65 (0.24-0.84), and osteitis 0.96 (0.91-0.98). Agreement was 83% for inflammation and 89% for RAMRIS. Analyses on the location level showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Agreement on subclinical inflammation between 1.5 T and 3.0 T was excellent. Although synovitis scores were slightly different, synovitis often occurs simultaneously with other inflammatory signs, suggesting that scientific results on the predictive value of MRI-detected inflammation for RA, obtained on 1.5 T MRI, can be generalized to 3.0 T MRI.
Authors: Paul Bird; Bo Ejbjerg; Marissa Lassere; Mikkel Østergaard; Fiona McQueen; Charles Peterfy; Espen Haavardsholm; Philip O'Connor; Harry Genant; John Edmonds; Paul Emery; Philip G Conaghan Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Wouter P Nieuwenhuis; Hanna W van Steenbergen; Wouter Stomp; Theo Stijnen; Tom W J Huizinga; Johan L Bloem; Désirée van der Heijde; Monique Reijnierse; Annette H M van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Hanna W van Steenbergen; Lukas Mangnus; Monique Reijnierse; Tom W J Huizinga; Annette H M van der Helm-van Mil Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 19.103