Ultrasonographic characteristics of major salivary glands in anti-centromere antibody-positive primary Sjögren's syndrome.

PURPOSE: To investigate salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) findings in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) patients positive for the anti-centromere antibody (ACA) and compare these with those in ACA-negative pSS patients.
METHODS: We analyzed demographic, clinical, laboratory, and SGUS data of pSS patients who fulfilled the 2002 American-European Consensus Group classification criteria for pSS. SGUS findings of four major salivary glands (bilateral parotid and submandibular glands) were scored in five categories and compared between ACA-positive and ACA-negative pSS patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to elucidate the factors associated with SGUS score.
RESULTS: In total, 121 pSS patients were enrolled (19, ACA-positive). The ACA-positive patients were older (67.0 vs 58.0 years, P = 0.028), whereas anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB positivity was more prevalent in the ACA-negative group (89.2% vs 21.1%, P < 0.001, and 47.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.007, respectively). The total SGUS and hypoechoic area scores were lower in ACA-positive patients (16.0 vs 23.0, P = 0.027, and 4.0 vs 7.0, P = 0.004, respectively). In univariate regression analysis, being positive for unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR < 1.5 ml/15 min), anti-Ro/SSA, and rheumatoid factor were positively associated whereas ACA positivity was negatively associated with the SGUS score. In multivariate regression analysis, being positive for USFR, anti-Ro/SSA, and rheumatoid factor showed significant association with the SGUS score.
CONCLUSIONS: ACA-positive pSS patients showed a lower SGUS score than ACA-negative patients, which was especially prominent in the hypoechoic area component.

Introduction

Primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) is a systemic autoimmune disease which primarily affects exocrine glands and causes sicca symptoms. The prevalence of pSS varies between 0.01–0.72%, with the condition occurring about 10 times more frequently in females than in males [1]. The pathogenesis of pSS is complex and even dysbiosis is associated with pSS pathogenesis [2]. The manifestations of pSS are not limited to sicca symptoms but may also be accompanied by arthralgia, fatigue, cutaneous symptoms, pulmonary involvement, cystitis, and even sleep disturbance [3-6]. A diagnosis of pSS can be made by quantifying the degree of xerostomia/xerophthalmia, a special stain for the eyes, from histologic findings of minor salivary glands, and the presence of pSS-associated autoantibodies such as anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB [7,8].

Major salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) has been suggested as an adjuvant tool for pSS diagnosis and shows a similar diagnostic power to sialoscintigraphy or minor salivary gland biopsy [9]. Furthermore, Cornec et al has shown that using a SGUS score with the 2002 American-European Consensus Group (AECG) classification criteria enhances diagnostic power [10]. Since SGUS has the advantage of finding structural changes in the salivary gland of pSS patients, it has been suggested as an early diagnostic tool [11]. The SGUS score correlates with unstimulated whole saliva flow rate (USFR) and the focus score of minor salivary gland biopsy [11,12]. A recent study has shown that hyperechoic foci found during SGUS also correlates with USFR [13], which suggests that SGUS findings could predict not only the structural changes in salivary glands, but also the functional and histologic changes. Furthermore, the SGUS showed significant association with disease activity measured by European League Against Rheumatism Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index, which imply that SGUS is not only useful for diagnosis of pSS but also for predicting clinical activity of pSS [14].

The two autoantibodies, anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB, are known to be specific for pSS. These antibodies directly combine with ribonucleoprotein complexes, which are composed of five proteins; Ro 52 kDa, Ro 60 kDa, La, calreticulin, and nucleolin [15]. Although anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies are found in about 80% of pSS patients, several other autoantibodies are also present [16]. Among patients with these atypical autoantibodies, anti-centromere antibody (ACA)-positive patients are perceived to be a unique pSS subgroup [15,17]. However, the SGUS findings of ACA-positive pSS patients have not yet been evaluated.

We primarily aimed to evaluate the SGUS findings of ACA-positive pSS patients and compare these with ACA-negative pSS patients. Furthermore, we evaluated the influence of autoantibodies, including ACA, on the SGUS score.

Materials and methods

Study population

All patients who visited the rheumatology clinic of single tertiary hospital for xerostomia/xerophthalmia or known pSS from June 2016 to April 2020 underwent SGUS evaluation. Any patient who fulfilled the 2002 AECG classification criteria for pSS was included in the analysis [18]. Patients with other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, inflammatory myositis, rheumatoid arthritis, and mixed connective tissue disease, were excluded. In addition, patients with malignancies were excluded. The present study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Konkuk University Medical Center (IRB number: 2020-05-045). The requirement for written informed consent was waived by the IRB of Konkuk University Medical Center because data were collected retrospectively.

Demographic, laboratory, and clinical data were collected. Exocrine gland function (USFR and Schirmer I test) and laboratory tests were performed at the same time as SGUS. The USFR was measured for 15 minutes, with less than 1.5 ml of saliva observed in this time deemed as a positive finding. A positive result for the Schirmer I test was defined as less than 5 mm of wetting in filter paper after 5 minutes [8]. Indirect immunofluorescence assays using HEp-2 cells were performed to detect the anti-nuclear antibody (ANA), and an ANA titer of over 1:320 was considered as positive, in accordance with the 2012 ACR classification criteria [7]. Anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and ACA were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Rheumatoid factor (RF) titer was measured via the nephelometry method, and a normal reference range was established as less than 18 IU/ml. Hypergammaglobulinemia was defined as an immunoglobulin G level over 1600 mg/L, according to the biological domain of the EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index [19]. Reference ranges for complement 3 and 4 were 86 to 160, and 17 to 47 mg/dL, respectively.

Major salivary gland ultrasonography assessment

We performed SGUS in the bilateral parotid and submandibular glands and scored the findings semi-quantitatively according to Hocevar et al [20]. The patients were placed on bed by supine position, and SGUS for parotid gland was assessed after patient’s head was maximally tilted to opposite side, then scanned in the retromandibular fossa by longitudinal and transverse planes. After assessing parotid gland, then head was maximally tilted to backward to assess submandibular gland in posterior part of the submandibular triangle by longitudinal planes. The thyroid gland was also scanned to compare the echogenicity of salivary gland. A semi-quantitative SGUS score was determined by grading in 5 categories: echogenicity, homogeneity, hypoechoic areas, hyperechoic foci, and clearness of salivary gland borders. The score for echogenicity was 0 when the salivary gland parenchyma showed similar echogenicity to the thyroid gland and 1 when echogenicity of the salivary gland was decreased. Homogeneity was scored from 0 to 3 (grade 0 for a homogeneous gland, 1 for mild inhomogeneity, 2 for definite inhomogeneity, and 3 for a grossly inhomogeneous gland). The hypoechoic areas were similarly graded (grade 0 for the absence of hypoechoic lesions, 1 for a few hypoechoic lesions, 2 for several, and 3 for diffuse numerous hypoechoic lesions). Hyperechoic foci were graded from 0 to 3 for the parotid gland (grade 0 for the absence of hyperechoic foci, 1 for a few, 2 for several, and 3 for diffuse numerous hyperechoic foci) and from 0 to 1 for the submandibular gland (grade 0 for the absence and 1 for the presence of hyperechoic foci). Finally, the clearance of the gland border was also graded from 0 to 3 (grade 0 for a clear border, 1 for a partially less delineated border, 2 for an ill-defined delineated border, and 3 for a non-visible border). The total score for each parotid and submandibular gland ranged from 0 to 13 and 0 to 11, respectively. The total possible SGUS score was 48, and a score over 14 was defined as compatible with pSS [21]. Parenchymal power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS) was also graded from 0 to 3 as follows: grade 0 for no abnormal flow; 1 for up to three spots of PD signals, up to two confluent spots, or one confluent spot plus up to two single spots; 2 for PD signals in less than half of the gland parenchyma (≤ 50%); and 3 for PD signals in more than half of the gland parenchyma (> 50%) [21]. The PDUS score for each parotid and submandibular gland ranged 0 to 3, and the total PDUS score could reach 12. An experienced rheumatologist (K.A. Lee) performed SGUS and PDUS and these were scored by two independent rheumatologist (H.K. Min and S.H. Kim) for twice, who was blinded for the patient’s information. All ultrasonography examinations were conducted using an HD15 PureWave US system (Philips Ultrasound, Bothell, WA, USA) device with a 5–12 MHz multi-frequency linear probe.

Sample size calculation

Primary endpoint for present study was comparing total SGUS score between ACA positive and ACA negative patients with pSS. In previous study [21], difference of SGUS score between pSS and idiopathic sicca syndrome groups was 17 with standard deviation (SD) 13. On the basis of α-error 5%, statistic power 90%, and drop-out rate 10%, at least 14 patients were required for each group. The present study was conducted as retrospective manner, we included as many patients as possible.

Propensity score matching

As baseline characteristics of ACA positive and negative patients with pSS showed in aspect of age and USFR, we performed propensity score (PS) matched ACA negative pSS group by using nearest-neighboring with 1:2 ratio. Age and USFR were imputed as variables in PS matching. The SGUS finding between ACA positive and PS-matched ACA negative groups were also compared.

Statistical analysis

Normal distribution of continuous variables was assessed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Based on whether the variables were normally distributed or not, they were evaluated with either the Student’s T-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Continuous variables were presented as mean ± SD or median with interquartile range (IQR). Binary variables were presented as a percentage, and the chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test were used. Inter- and intra-reader reliability were calculated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Linear regression analysis was performed to find the factors associated with SGUS score, and the factors with P values under 0.1 in univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were performed using the software R (R for Windows 3.3.2; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Baseline characteristics of demographic, laboratory, and clinical findings

We performed SGUS on a total of 267 patients, but 146 of these patients were excluded from analysis. Finally, 19 pSS patients who were ACA positive (15.7%) and 102 who were ACA negative (84.3%) were incorporated in the analysis (Fig 1). The ACA-positive group was significantly older than the ACA-negative group at the time of diagnosis of pSS (58.2 ± 11.6 vs 49.9 ± 12.5 years, P = 0.009). For laboratory data, anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB antibodies were found more frequently in the ACA-negative group. Degrees of xerophthalmia measured by the Schirmer I test was comparable between the two groups, whereas USFR was lower in ACA-positive pSS group. Other characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Fig 1

Flow chart of included and excluded patients the in present study.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients with ACA positive and negative primary Sjogren’s syndrome.

	Anti-centromere antibody positive pSS, (N = 19)	Anti-centromere antibody negative pSS, (N = 102)	P
Female, N (%)	18 (94.7%)	95 (93.1%)	1.000
Age (years)	65.1 ± 8.2	54.2 ± 12.6	0.002
Age at pSS diagnosis (years)	58.2 ± 11.6	49.9 ± 12.8	0.009
Disease duration (years)	2.5 [0.0; 6.0]	3.9 [0.2; 7.2]	0.233
Xerostomia, N (%)	19 (100.0%)	83 (81.4%)	0.088
Xerophthalmia, N (%)	14 (73.7%)	79 (77.5%)	0.951
Raynaud phenomenon, N (%)	6 (31.6%)	25 (24.5%)	0.717
ILD, N (%)	2 (10.5%)	8 (8.0%)	1.000
Schirmer’s I test (mm/5min)	3.0 [1.0; 5.0]	3.0 [2.0; 5.0]	0.846
Schirmer’s I test positive, N (%)	12/14 (85.7%)	49/65 (75.4%)	0.628
USFR (ml/15min)	0.8 [0.2; 1.5]	1.4 [1.0; 3.5]	0.026
USFR test positive, N (%)	12/14 (85.7%)	54/97 (55.7%)	0.064
ANA positive, N (%)	15 (78.9%)	54 (52.9%)	0.064
Anti-Ro antibody positive, N (%)	4 (21.1%)	91 (89.2%)	< 0.001
Anti-La antibody positive, N (%)	2 (10.5%)	48 (47.1%)	0.007
RF positive, N (%)	4 (21.1%)	42 (42.0%)	0.144
IgG (mg/dL)	1403.0 [1118.0;1681.5]	1626.0 [1348.0;1942.0]	0.053
Hypergammaglobulinemia, N (%)	7/15 (46.7%)	51/93(54.8%)	0.757
IgA (mg/dL)	272.0 [217.5;428.5]	280.0 [222.5;389.0]	0.910
IgM (mg/dL)	145.0 [98.0;258.5]	96.0 [69.0;129.0]	0.004
C3 (mg/dL)	103.7 [85.9;114.2]	95.5 [89.3;107.8]	0.535
hypoC3, N (%)	4/14 (28.6%)	17/92 (18.5%)	0.601
C4 (mg/dL)	25.8 [22.4;28.9]	22.3 [19.1;26.2]	0.097
hypoC4, N (%)	1/14 (7.1%)	18/92 (19.6%)	0.450
ESR (mm/hr)	14.0 [7.0;23.0]	19.0 [10.0;30.0]	0.159
hs-CRP (mg/dL)	0.1 [0.1; 0.1]	0.1 [0.0; 0.1]	0.614
White blood cell (× 103/mm3)	6290.0 [4645.0;7540.0]	4945.0 [3940.0;6210.0]	0.058
Hemoglobin (g/dl)	13.0 [12.2;13.7]	12.6 [12.0;13.3]	0.244
Platelet (× 103/mm3)	225.0 [167.0;252.0]	218.0 [185.0;260.0]	0.514

ANA, anti-nuclear antibody; C3, complement 3; C4, complement 4; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; hs-CRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; Ig, immunoglobulin; ILD, interstitial lung disease; pSS, primary Sjögren’s syndrome; RF, rheumatoid factor; USFR, unstimulated whole saliva flow rate.

Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median with interquartile range depending on whether it is normally distributed or not.

Comparison of SGUS scores between ACA-positive and ACA-negative pSS patients

The ICC of total SGUS score between reader 1 and 2 was 0.780 (95% CI 0.743–0.815), and ICCs of total SGUS score for intra-reader reliability were 0.821 (95% CI 0.778–0.853, reader 1) and 0.792 (95% CI 0.749–0.830, reader 2), respectively. The SGUS scores of the two groups were compared for total score, hypoechoic area score, hyperechoic foci score, and PDUS score. The hypoechoic area scores were significantly lower in the ACA-positive group than in the ACA-negative group (4.0 vs 7.0, P = 0.004), a difference which was also observed for total SGUS score (16.0 vs 23.0, P = 0.027). However, when comparing the number of patients with a total SGUS score ≥ 14, the outcomes were similar between the two groups. Detailed information of SGUS scores is presented in Table 2. In addition, PS-matched ACA-negative group (N = 38) was selected by imputing age and USFR in PS matching, then compared the SGUS score with ACA-positive group (N = 19). These also showed significant lower total SGUS score and SGUS score of hypoechoic area in ACA-positive group than PS-matched ACA-negative group (S1 Table).

Table 2

Salivary gland ultrasonography scores of patients with ACA positive and negative primary Sjogren’s syndrome.

	Anti-centromere antibody positive pSS, (N = 19)	Anti-centromere antibody negative pSS, (N = 102)	P
Hypoechoic area score of parotid gland (0–6)	2.0 [1.5; 2.5]	4.0 [1.0; 4.0]	0.011
Hypoechoic area score of submandibular gland (0–6)	2.0 [1.0; 3.0]	4.0 [2.0; 4.0]	0.019
Total hypoehoic area score (0–12)	4.0 [3.5; 5.0]	7.0 [4.0; 9.0]	0.004
Hyperechoic foci score of parotid gland (0–6)	2.0 [2.0; 2.0]	2.0 [2.0; 3.0]	0.860
Hyperechoic foci score of submandibular gland (0–2)	2.0 [2.0; 2.0]	2.0 [2.0; 2.0]	0.910
Total hyperechoic foci score (0–8)	4.0 [3.5; 4.0]	4.0 [3.0; 4.0]	0.789
Echogenicity score of parotid gland (0–2)	0.0 [0.0; 1.0]	0.0 [0.0; 2.0]	0.321
Echogenicity score of submandibular gland (0–2)	0.0 [0.0; 2.0]	2.0 [0.0; 2.0]	0.204
Total echogenicity score (0–4)	0.5 [0.0; 2.0]	2.0 [0.0; 4.0]	0.185
Homogeneity score of parotid gland (0–6)	2.0 [2.0; 4.0]	2.0 [1.0; 4.0]	0.775
Homogeneity score of submandibular gland (0–6)	3.5 [2.0; 5.0]	4.0 [2.0; 6.0]	0.754
Total homogeneity score (0–12)	6.0 [4.0; 8.0]	6.5 [4.0;10.0]	0.597
Clearance of the border score of parotid gland (0–6)	0.0 [0.0; 0.0]	0.0 [0.0; 2.0]	0.107
Clearance of the border score of submandibular gland (0–6)	2.0 [0.0; 3.0]	2.0 [0.0; 3.0]	0.865
Total clearance of the border score (0–12)	2.0 [0.0; 4.0]	3.0 [0.0; 4.0]	0.526
PDUS score of parotid gland (0–6)	1.5 [0.0; 3.0]	2.0 [0.0; 3.0]	0.611
PDUS score of submandibular gland (0–6)	1.0 [0.0; 4.0]	2.0 [0.0; 3.0]	0.993
Total PDUS score (0–12)	2.5 [0.0; 6.0]	3.0 [0.0; 5.0]	0.797
SGUS score of parotid gland, (0–26)	7.0 [4.0; 10.0]	10.0 [4.0;14.0]	0.097
SGUS score of submandibular gland, (0–22)	9.0 [5.5;12.0]	13.0 [8.0;16.0]	0.036
Total SGUS score, (0–48)	16.0 [11.5;21.5]	23.0 [12.0;28.0]	0.027
SGUS score ≥ 14, N (%)	12 (63.2%)	72 (70.6%)	0.708

PDUS, power Doppler ultrasonography; SGUS, salivary gland ultrasonography.

Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median with interquartile range depending on whether it is normally distributed or not.

Predictors for total SGUS score

Following univariate linear regression analysis to identify factors associated with SGUS score, USFR positive (USFR ≤ 1.5 ml/15 min), anti-Ro/SSA positive, and RF positive results were significantly associated with SGUS score. Being positive for ACA showed a negative association with SGUS score (β coefficient -8.51, P = 0.039). In multivariate analysis, USFR positive (β coefficient 11.96, P < 0.001), anti-Ro/SSA positive (β coefficient 5.97, P = 0.010), and RF positive results (β coefficient 5.01, P = 0.002) displayed significant association with SGUS score (Table 3).

Table 3

Associated factors with salivary gland ultrasonography score found by univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.

	Univariate			Multivariate
	β	95% CI	P	β	95% CI	P
Age	0.02	-0.17, 0.22	0.799
Male gender	-6.62	-15.53, 2.30	0.142
Disease duration (years)	0.63	-0.17, 1.44	0.121
Xerostomia	5.14	-1.78, 12.07	0.142
Xerophthalmia	1.61	-4.70, 7.91	0.612
Raynaud phenomenon	-0.16	-6.30, 5.99	0.959
ILD	-6.83	-15.00, 1.35	0.100
Schirmer I test positive	4.05	-2.18, 10.27	0.198
USFR positive	9.91	5.34, 14.49	<0.001	11.96	8.84, 15.07	<0.001
ANA positive	3.67	-1.48, 8.81	0.159
Anti-Ro/SSA positive	6.91	0.88, 12.94	0.026	5.97	1.45, 10.49	0.010
Anti-La/SSB positive	1.84	-3.45, 7.13	0.488
Anti-centromere positive	-8.51	-16.57, -0.45	0.039	-2.93	-8.22, 2.36	0.275
RF positive	7.77	3.03, 12.50	0.002	5.01	1.84, 8.18	0.002
Hypergammaglobulinemia	2.58	-2.59, 7.75	0.321

Total R2: 0.444, adjusted R2: 0.423, P<0.001, β: Regression coefficient.

ANA, anti-nuclear antibody; ILD, interstitial lung disease; RF, rheumatoid factor; USFR, unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Discussion

The present study compared the SGUS findings between ACA-positive and ACA-negative pSS patients for the first time. The total SGUS score was significantly lower in the ACA-positive group, a difference that was more prominent in the hypoechoic area score than the hyperechoic foci score. Previous studies have shown that SGUS findings correlate with visual analogue scale of ocular and oral dryness, stimulated whole saliva flow rate, and USFR [11,12]. Also, higher SGUS score was associated with poor response to rituximab [22]. Among the SGUS scoring components, the extent of hyperechoic foci has shown significant positive association with USFR [13], and PDUS has shown predictive value for SGUS progression in 2-year follow up data [23]. In addition, SGUS of hypoechoic area significantly progressed in pSS patients [23]. Patients with pSS who had systemic manifestation (peripheral neuropathy or leucocytoclastic vasculitis or interstitial lung disease or lymphadenopathy or arthritis) had higher SGUS score [24]. Similar to past research, a positive USFR showed the strongest association with SGUS score in the present study. This suggests that SGUS score is closely related with actual salivary gland function. Although some studies demonstrated the association between specific component of SGUS and severity of sicca symptoms and predictive role of SGUS findings on prognosis of pSS, however, further studies are needed to clarify the role of SGUS findings in severity and prognosis of pSS patients. Several different SGUS scoring systems exist [9,20,25,26], the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) ultrasound working group are developing a new scoring system, which may unify the current schemes and increase the sensitivity and specificity of the existing SGUS scoring system [27].

In the present study, SGUS score was also significantly related to being positive for anti-Ro/SSA and RF. A previous study showed that pSS patients who are anti-Ro/SSA positive, or double positive for both anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB, present a higher SGUS score than negative patients [24], and we have also reported that being double positive for anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB is positively associated with SGUS severity [21]. Zhang. X. et al demonstrated that SGUS score correlates with serum RF levels [25], which is similar to our current findings. Although the serologic levels of anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and RF have consistently shown a clear association with SGUS severity, the functional mechanisms of these antibodies in salivary gland structural damage have not yet been revealed. Further research should be performed to elucidate the pathologic effects of anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and RF on the salivary glands.

Patients who are positive for ACA are perceived as a unique sub-group of pSS patients, and the prevalence is 3.7–27% [15]. Being positive for ACA is associated with an older age, a higher prevalence of Raynaud phenomenon, and a lower prevalence of hypergammaglobulinemia and leukopenia [17,28-33]. When analyzing autoimmune antibody profile, anti-Ro/SSA, anti-La/SSB, and RF show consistently lower positivity in ACA-positive pSS patients than in negative patients [29,31,32]. The results from the current study are consistent with those of previous research for several clinical and serologic features, such as older age and lower anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB prevalence in the ACA-positive pSS group. However, here the RF positivity, leukopenia, and hypergammaglobulinemia only showed a tendency for lower occurrence in ACA-positive patients, but this was not significant. These discordances may have risen from a relatively small sample size and a difference in race. Despite these small discrepancies with past research, we showed for the first time that the changes observed with SGUS were less severe in ACA-positive pSS patients than in negative patients.

Usually, ACA is present in limited-type systemic sclerosis patients [34], and can recognize several epitopes of centromere proteins; CENP-A, CENP-B, and CENP-C [35,36]. Minor salivary gland biopsy has revealed that the presence of fibrous tissue in the minor salivary glands of ACA-positive pSS patients is more severe [30]. Furthermore, exocrine gland dysfunction, measured by the Schirmer I test and USFR, is also enhanced in ACA-positive pSS groups when compared to negative groups [32]. Therefore, we expected the extent of hyperechoic foci, which potentially represent fibrous change in salivary glands, to be more severe in ACA-positive pSS patients. However, this parameter was similar between the ACA-positive and negative pSS groups in the present study. Further studies demonstrating correlation between each component of the SGUS scoring system and salivary gland biopsy observations could clarify these unexpected results.

Future research should also address several of the limitations of the current study. First, the sample size of the ACA-positive pSS group was relatively small. However, the prevalence of ACA positivity in the pSS group as a whole was 15.7%, which was comparable with previous studies dealing with the characteristics of ACA-positive pSS patients. Second, the study design was cross-sectional and no follow up data was evaluated. Third, we included pSS patients with various disease durations, not only newly diagnosed pSS patients. The thorough evaluation of SGUS, minor salivary gland biopsy, exocrine gland function (Schirmer I test and USFR), and laboratory data in pSS patients at the time of first diagnosis could clarify the difference between ACA-positive and negative patients. Finally, we collected the data retrospectively, and thus, some clinical information, such as the EULAR Sjögren’s syndrome disease activity index, was lacking.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we presented the difference between the SGUS findings of ACA-positive and negative pSS patients. The total SGUS score was less severe in ACA-positive pSS patients, and this difference was emphasized in the hypoechoic area component of the SGUS scoring system. This may indicate that ACA-positive pSS patients possess less severe exocrine gland damage than ACA-negative pSS patients.

Salivary gland ultrasonography scores of patients with ACA positive and age-, and USFR- propensity score matched ACA negative primary Sjogren’s syndrome.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

26 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-19041

Ultrasonographic Characteristics of Major Salivary Glands in Anti-centromere Antibody-positive Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kim,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Our reviewers found some interests in this study, but also pointed out a number of criticisms, which are relevant and critical. All comments made by reviewers must be adequately answered in the revised version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1A02050982, Receiver : HR Kim).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4.  PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1A02050982).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This research was supported by a grant from the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea (NRF-2018R1D1A1A02050982, Receiver: HR Kim).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting article on US characteristics in major salivary gland in patients with ACA+primary Sjoegren's syndrome. ACA+pSS is considered as a subgroup in SS, but differences in the pathogenesis are still unknown. In this study, authors found some characteristic US findings in ACA+pSS. As authors stated in limitation, number of patients in ACA+group is not many and it may be difficult to judge if these findings are definitive or not. ACA+SS is relatively few in all pSS and moreover may be heterogeneous in the various characteristics. US findings usually largely depends on the disease stage. I am not sure whether this kind of characteristics can be caused from existence of a certain type of antibody. If authors want to emphasize current conclusion, more definitive data would be required. Significance of US characteristics should be more discussed.

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated the salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) findings in primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) patients positive for the anti-centromere antibody (ACA) and compared these with those in ACA-negative pSS patients. They conclude that ACA-positive pSS patients showed a lower SGUS score than ACA-negative patients, which was especially prominent in the hypoechoic area component. I think the lower SGUS score in the ACA-positive patients might be due to the significantly older age and lower USFR of this group. To show the possible contribution of ACA to the phenotype of SS, SGUS findings should be compared between age and severity matched groups.

What does the difference in hypoechoic area component mean? It should be discussed.

As ultrasound is frequently considered the most operator-dependent imaging technique, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability is an important concern. Results of intra- and inter-reader reliability studies should be reported.

Scanning procedure and ultrasound equipment should be written in more detail.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors presented the difference of salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) findings between anti-centromere antibody (ACA)-positive and negative primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) patients. The total SGUS score was less severe in ACA-positive pSS patients, and this difference was emphasized in the hypoechoic area component of the SGUS scoring system. In multivariate regression analysis, being positive for unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR), anti-Ro/SSA, and rheumatoid factor (RF) showed significant association with the SGUS score. Although these findings might be clinically important and meaningful, the authors should address following points.

1) The authors described, ‘Degrees of xerophthalmia and xerostomia, measured by the Schirmer I test and USFR, were comparable between the two groups’. However, in Table1, USFR was significantly lower in ACA-positive pSS patients than in ACA-negative pSS patients.

2) In Table1, the pathological findings of labial salivary glands biopsy should be compared.

3) In Table2, other 3 components of SGUS score, such as echogenicity, homogeneity, and clearness of salivary gland borders should be added.

4) The reason or possible mechanism why hypoechoic area was decreased in ACA-positive pSS patients should be discussed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Sep 2021

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting article on US characteristics in major salivary gland in patients with ACA+primary Sjoegren's syndrome. ACA+pSS is considered as a subgroup in SS, but differences in the pathogenesis are still unknown. In this study, authors found some characteristic US findings in ACA+pSS. As authors stated in limitation, number of patients in ACA+group is not many and it may be difficult to judge if these findings are definitive or not. ACA+SS is relatively few in all pSS and moreover may be heterogeneous in the various characteristics. US findings usually largely depends on the disease stage. I am not sure whether this kind of characteristics can be caused from existence of a certain type of antibody. If authors want to emphasize current conclusion, more definitive data would be required. Significance of US characteristics should be more discussed.

Answer : We agree with the referee’s comment. In previous studies, ACA-positive pSS showed several differences with ACA-negative pSS (older age, high prevalence of Raynaud phenomenon, lower prevalence of hypergammaglobulinemia and leukopenia). In present study, some baseline characteristics (age, and USFR) differ between ACA-positive and ACA-negative groups. We selected age- and USFR- matched ACA-negative group, then compared SGUS findings of ACA-positive and age-/USFR- matched ACA-negative groups (supplementary Table 1). These were also similar with original SGUS comparison between ACA-positive and ACA-negative groups. We also added the significance of SGUS in discussion section (line 237-250).

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated the salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) findings in primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) patients positive for the anti-centromere antibody (ACA) and compared these with those in ACA-negative pSS patients. They conclude that ACA-positive pSS patients showed a lower SGUS score than ACA-negative patients, which was especially prominent in the hypoechoic area component. I think the lower SGUS score in the ACA-positive patients might be due to the significantly older age and lower USFR of this group. To show the possible contribution of ACA to the phenotype of SS, SGUS findings should be compared between age and severity matched groups.

Answer : As reviewer’s comment, we compared the SGUS score of ACA positive pSS with age- and USFR- matched ACA negative pSS group. The main results (lower SGUS score, lower hypoechoic area score of ACA positive pSS) were similar with original results. These were supplied as supplementary Table 1.

What does the difference in hypoechoic area component mean? It should be discussed.

Answer : Although SGUS is useful tool for pSS diagnosis, however, little is known about the impact of hypoechoic area (SGUS score) in pSS prognosis. In one study, the hypoechoic area score significantly progressed in pSS patients ("Ultrasonographic Changes of Major Salivary Glands in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome." J Clin Med 2020; 9(3)). We added these on discussion section (line 242-243).

As ultrasound is frequently considered the most operator-dependent imaging technique, intra-rater and inter-rater reliability is an important concern. Results of intra- and inter-reader reliability studies should be reported.

Answer : We added intra- and inter-reader reliability on result section (line 198-200)

Scanning procedure and ultrasound equipment should be written in more detail.

Answer : We added detailed information of US scanning procedure and equipment (line 114-120, 142-145)

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors presented the difference of salivary gland ultrasonography (SGUS) findings between anti-centromere antibody (ACA)-positive and negative primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) patients. The total SGUS score was less severe in ACA-positive pSS patients, and this difference was emphasized in the hypoechoic area component of the SGUS scoring system. In multivariate regression analysis, being positive for unstimulated salivary flow rate (USFR), anti-Ro/SSA, and rheumatoid factor (RF) showed significant association with the SGUS score. Although these findings might be clinically important and meaningful, the authors should address following points.

1) The authors described, ‘Degrees of xerophthalmia and xerostomia, measured by the Schirmer I test and USFR, were comparable between the two groups’. However, in Table1, USFR was significantly lower in ACA-positive pSS patients than in ACA-negative pSS patients.

Answer : We revised the sentence (line 182-184).

2) In Table1, the pathological findings of labial salivary glands biopsy should be compared.

Answer : We agree that minor salivary gland biopsy is important in pSS diagnosis. However, most of the enrolled pSS patients in present study did not performed minor salivary gland biopsy. As biopsy is invasive procedure, in our rheumatology clinics, only ambiguous patients (highly suspicious for pSS, but not fulfilled the classification criteria for pSS) were consulted for minor salivary gland biopsy.

3) In Table2, other 3 components of SGUS score, such as echogenicity, homogeneity, and clearness of salivary gland borders should be added.

Answer : We added information of echogenicity / homogeneity / clearness of salivary gland borders in Table 2.

4) The reason or possible mechanism why hypoechoic area was decreased in ACA-positive pSS patients should be discussed.

Answer : Although SGUS is useful tool for pSS diagnosis, however, little is known about the role of hypoechoic area (SGUS score) in pSS. In addition, we originally expected that hyperechoic band may be increased in ACA-positive group, because ACA is usually found in systemic sclerosis which cause systemic fibrous change in various organs. We wrote this on discussion section (278-288). Suggesting possible mechanism at this stage may be cause overestimation of present study.

We only found that the hypoechoic area score significantly progressed in pSS patients ("Ultrasonographic Changes of Major Salivary Glands in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome." J Clin Med 2020; 9(3)). We added these on discussion section (line 242-243).

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Oct 2021

Ultrasonographic Characteristics of Major Salivary Glands in Anti-centromere Antibody-positive Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome

PONE-D-21-19041R1

Dear Dr. Min,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed with new analysis and description. I do not have further comment on this article.

Reviewer #3: Authors have successfully revised the manuscript according to reviewers’ comments. I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

25 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-19041R1

Ultrasonographic Characteristics of Major Salivary Glands in Anti-centromere Antibody-positive Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome

Dear Dr. Min:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Masataka Kuwana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE