Charline Rinkin1, Pacôme Fosse2, Olivier Malaise3, Nathalie Chapelier3, Jil Horrion4, Laurence Seidel5, Adelin Albert5, Roland Hustinx6, Michel G Malaise3. 1. Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital of Liège, Room 155 BC + 3, CHU Sart-Tilman B35, Avenue de l'hôpital 1, B-4000, Liège, Belgium. c.rinkin@chuliege.be. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Liège, Angers, France. 3. Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital of Liège, Room 155 BC + 3, CHU Sart-Tilman B35, Avenue de l'hôpital 1, B-4000, Liège, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammation of patients joints with severe disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has already been visualized and quantified by 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission computed tomography ([18F] FDG PET/CT), but little is known about the metabolic status and its relationship with clinical and ultrasonography (US) metrology in patients with low/moderate activity or in remission. METHODS: Clinical assessments [based on 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28-CRP) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)], [18F] FDG PET/CT, US and X-ray were performed on 63 RA patients classified into remission or low/moderate or severe disease activity groups. PET/CT was visually and then semi-quantitatively analysed by determining the standardized uptake value (SUV) of positive joints. RESULTS: Of the 1764 joints, 21.1% were tender only, 13.7% swollen only, 27.6% tender or swollen, 7.3% tender and swollen, 20.5% PET/CT-positive and 8.6% US-positive. PET and US measurements were correlated, albeit with poor concordance. The positive predictive value of PET/CT for clinical evaluation (tender and/or swollen) was low, whereas its negative predictive value was high. Highly significant differences were found with the number of PET/CT-positive joints and with cumulative SUV between "severe" and "non-severe" patients (including those in remission and those with low/moderate activity) and not between those classified as "remission" and "non-remission" or "remission" and "low/moderate activity". Moreover, the correlation between PET/CT measurements and clinical activity was positive only in the CDAI severe disease group. In patients in remission or with low/moderate activity, only 20-30% of joints were PET/CT-negative. In remission, PET/CT and US were positive in different joints, and PET/CT-positive but US-negative joints mainly exhibited RA (38.1%) or normal (49.2%) and not osteoarthritic (12.7%) X-ray patterns. CONCLUSIONS: [18F] FDG PET/CT was effective at distinguishing patients with severely active disease from other patients. In non-severe RA patients, including those in remission, PET/CT results are discordant from US and clinical observations. A longitudinal analysis is needed to explore the clinical relevance of such infra-clinical disease.
BACKGROUND:Inflammation of patients joints with severe disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has already been visualized and quantified by 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission computed tomography ([18F] FDG PET/CT), but little is known about the metabolic status and its relationship with clinical and ultrasonography (US) metrology in patients with low/moderate activity or in remission. METHODS: Clinical assessments [based on 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28-CRP) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)], [18F] FDG PET/CT, US and X-ray were performed on 63 RApatients classified into remission or low/moderate or severe disease activity groups. PET/CT was visually and then semi-quantitatively analysed by determining the standardized uptake value (SUV) of positive joints. RESULTS: Of the 1764 joints, 21.1% were tender only, 13.7% swollen only, 27.6% tender or swollen, 7.3% tender and swollen, 20.5% PET/CT-positive and 8.6% US-positive. PET and US measurements were correlated, albeit with poor concordance. The positive predictive value of PET/CT for clinical evaluation (tender and/or swollen) was low, whereas its negative predictive value was high. Highly significant differences were found with the number of PET/CT-positive joints and with cumulative SUV between "severe" and "non-severe" patients (including those in remission and those with low/moderate activity) and not between those classified as "remission" and "non-remission" or "remission" and "low/moderate activity". Moreover, the correlation between PET/CT measurements and clinical activity was positive only in the CDAI severe disease group. In patients in remission or with low/moderate activity, only 20-30% of joints were PET/CT-negative. In remission, PET/CT and US were positive in different joints, and PET/CT-positive but US-negative joints mainly exhibited RA (38.1%) or normal (49.2%) and not osteoarthritic (12.7%) X-ray patterns. CONCLUSIONS: [18F] FDG PET/CT was effective at distinguishing patients with severely active disease from other patients. In non-severe RApatients, including those in remission, PET/CT results are discordant from US and clinical observations. A longitudinal analysis is needed to explore the clinical relevance of such infra-clinical disease.
Authors: Sarah C Horton; Ai Lyn Tan; Jane E Freeston; Richard J Wakefield; Maya H Buch; Paul Emery Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Philip G Conaghan; Philip O'Connor; Dennis McGonagle; Paul Astin; Richard J Wakefield; Wayne W Gibbon; Mark Quinn; Zunaid Karim; Michael J Green; Susanna Proudman; John Isaacs; Paul Emery Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2003-01
Authors: Michaela A Stoffer; Monika M Schoels; Josef S Smolen; Daniel Aletaha; Ferdinand C Breedveld; Gerd Burmester; Vivian Bykerk; Maxime Dougados; Paul Emery; Boulos Haraoui; Juan Gomez-Reino; Tore K Kvien; Peter Nash; Victoria Navarro-Compán; Marieke Scholte-Voshaar; Ronald van Vollenhoven; Désirée van der Heijde; Tanja A Stamm Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: E H Elzinga; C J van der Laken; E F I Comans; A A Lammertsma; B A C Dijkmans; A E Voskuyl Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488