A novel ultrasonographic synovitis scoring system suitable for analyzing finger joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis
Corresponding Author
Alexander K. Scheel
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Department of Medicine, Nephrology and Rheumatology, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075 Gottingen, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorKay-Geert A. Hermann
Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorElke Kahler
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel Pasewaldt
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorEdgar Brunner
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorGerhard A. Müller
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Alexander K. Scheel
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Department of Medicine, Nephrology and Rheumatology, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075 Gottingen, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorKay-Geert A. Hermann
Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorElke Kahler
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorDaniel Pasewaldt
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorEdgar Brunner
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorGerhard A. Müller
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Gottingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Objective
To develop an ultrasonographic (US) synovitis scoring system suitable for evaluation of finger joint inflammation in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare semiquantitative US scoring with quantitative US measurements.
Methods
US was performed at the palmar and dorsal sides of the second through fifth metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints in 10 healthy subjects and in the clinically more affected hand in 46 RA patients. Ten patients additionally underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Synovitis was measured, standardized, and scored according to a semiquantitative method. The 2 methods (semiquantitative US scoring, quantitative US) were compared and statistical cutoffs were identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. MRI results were compared with semiquantitative US scoring and quantitative US results. The optimal US scoring method from 6 joint combinations was identified (ROC curve analysis).
Results
Synovitis was most frequently detected in the palmar proximal area (86% of affected joints). We found no significant differences between individual PIP joints or between individual MCP joints, indicating that all fingers within each of these joint groups should be treated equally for statistical calculations, although each joint group as a whole should be treated separately. The optimal cutoff point to distinguish between “health” and “pathology” was 0.6 mm both for MCP joints (sensitivity 94%, specificity 89%) and for PIP joints (sensitivity 90%, specificity 88%). There was no significant difference between semiquantitative US scores and quantitative US measurements. The best results for joint combinations were achieved using the “sum of 4 fingers” (second through fifth MCP and PIP joints) and “sum of 3 fingers” (second through fourth MCP and PIP joints) methods. Comparison of MRI results with semiquantitative US scores revealed high concordance.
Conclusion
US evaluation of finger joint synovitis can be considerably simplified by focusing on the palmar side and by applying semiquantitative grading instead of quantitative measurements. For evaluation of treatment efficacy based on synovitis in RA patients, we recommend using the “sum of 3 fingers” method in longitudinal trials.
REFERENCES
- 1 Conaghan P, Lassere M, Ostergaard M, Peterfy C, McQueen F, O'Connor P, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies, exercise 4: an international multicenter longitudinal study using the RA-MRI score. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1376–9.
- 2 Drossaers-Bakker KW, Kroon HM, Zwinderman AH, Breedveld FC, Hazes JM. Radiographic damage of large joints in long-term rheumatoid arthritis and its relation to function. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000; 39: 998–1003.
- 3 Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S, Klarlund M, Thomsen HS, Ostergaard M. Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 955–62.
- 4 Peterfy CG. New developments in imaging in rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2003; 15: 288–95.
- 5 Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG, O'Connor P, McGonagle D, Pease C, et al. The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum 2000; 43: 2762–70.
- 6 Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Hess D, Scholz A, et al. Prospective two year follow up study comparing novel and conventional imaging procedures in patients with arthritic finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2002; 61: 895–904.
- 7 Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ, et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1232–45.
- 8 Peterfy C, Edmonds J, Lassere M, Conaghan P, Ostergaard M, McQueen F, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI studies module. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1364–5.
- 9 Lassere M, McQueen F, Ostergaard M, Conaghan P, Shnier R, Peterfy C, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies, exercise 3: an international multicenter reliability study using the RA-MRI score. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1366–75.
- 10 Wakefield RJ, Kong KO, Conaghan PG, Brown AK, O'Connor PJ, Emery P. The role of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2003; 21 Suppl 31: S42–9.
- 11 Grassi W, Lamanna G, Farina A, Cervini C. Synovitis of small joints: sonographic guided diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Ann Rheum Dis 1999; 58: 595–7.
- 12 Grassi W, Tittarelli E, Blasetti P, Pirani O, Cervini C. Finger tendon involvement in rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation with high-frequency sonography. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 786–94.
- 13 Schmidt WA. Value of sonography in diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 2001; 357: 1056–7.
- 14 Ostergaard M, Szkudlarek M. Imaging in rheumatoid arthritis: why MRI and ultrasonography can no longer be ignored. Scand J Rheumatol 2003; 32: 63–73.
- 15 Wakefield RJ, Goh E, Conaghan PG, Karim Z, Emery P. Musculoskeletal ultrasonography in Europe: results of a rheumatologist-based survey at a EULAR meeting. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42: 1251–3.
- 16 Ostergaard M, Wiell C. Ultrasonography in rheumatoid arthritis: a very promising method still needing more validation. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2004; 16: 223–30.
- 17 Bird P, Ejbjerg B, McQueen F, Ostergaard M, Lassere M, Edmonds J. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies, exercise 5: an international multicenter reliability study using computerized MRI erosion volume measurements. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1380–4.
- 18 McQueen F, Lassere M, Edmonds J, Conaghan P, Peterfy C, Bird P, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies: summary of OMERACT 6 MR imaging module. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1387–92.
- 19 Van der Heijde D, Dankert T, Nieman F, Rau R, Boers M. Reliability and sensitivity to change of a simplification of the Sharp/van der Heijde radiological assessment in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38: 941–7.
- 20 Sharp JT, Young DY, Bluhm GB, Brook A, Brower AC, Corbett M, et al. How many joints in the hands and wrists should be included in a score of radiologic abnormalities used to assess rheumatoid arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 1985; 28: 1326–35.
- 21 Rau R, Wassenberg S, Herborn G, Stucki G, Gebler A. A new method of scoring radiographic change in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1998; 25: 2094–107.
- 22 Alasaarela E, Suramo I, Tervonen O, Lahde S, Takalo R, Hakala M. Evaluation of humeral head erosions in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and plain radiography. Br J Rheumatol 1998; 37: 1152–6.
- 23 Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Strandberg C, Klarlund M, Klausen T, Ostergaard M. Power Doppler ultrasonography for assessment of synovitis in the metacarpophalangeal joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 2018–23.
- 24 Hermann KG, Backhaus M, Schneider U, Labs K, Loreck D, Zuhlsdorf S, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder joint: comparison of conventional radiography, ultrasound, and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 3338–49.
- 25 Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Savnik A, von der Recke P, Qvistgaard E, Danneskiold-Samsoe B, et al. Doppler ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging of synovial inflammation of the hand in rheumatoid arthritis: a comparative study. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 2434–41.
- 26 Scheel AK, Backhaus M. Ultrasonographic assessment of finger and toe joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis: comment on the article by Szkudlarek et al [letter]. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50: 1008.
- 27 Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Strandberg C, Klarlund M, Klausen T, Ostergaard M. Reply to Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography (US) of the metacarpophalangeal joints on rheumatoid arthritis [letter]. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 547–8.
- 28 Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA, McShane DJ, Fries JF, Cooper NS, et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988; 31: 315–24.
- 29 Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight–joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 44–8.
- 30 Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Gerber T, Grassi W, Machold KP, Swen WA, et al. Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 641–9.
- 31 Ostergaard M, Peterfy C, Conaghan P, McQueen F, Bird P, Ejbjerg B, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies: core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1385–6.
- 32 Brunner E. Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. In: E Brunner, S Domhof, F Langer, editors. Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. 1st ed. New York: Wiley; 2002. p. 187–210.
- 33 Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8: 283–98.
- 34
Zhou X,
Obuchowski N,
McClish D.
Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine.
1st ed.
New York:
Wiley;
2002.
10.1002/9780470317082 Google Scholar
- 35 Kaufmann J, Werner C, Brunner E. Nonparametric methods for analyzing the accuracy of diagnostic tests with multiple readers. Stat Methods Med Res. In press.
- 36 Konig H, Sieper J, Wolf KJ. Rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation of hypervascular and fibrous pannus with dynamic MR imaging enhanced with Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1990; 176: 473–7.
- 37 Ostergaard M, Stoltenberg M, Lovgreen-Nielsen P, Volck B, Jensen CH, Lorenzen I. Magnetic resonance imaging–determined synovial membrane and joint effusion volumes in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: comparison with the macroscopic and microscopic appearance of the synovium. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1856–67.
- 38 Ostergaard M, Stoltenberg M, Lovgreen-Nielsen P, Volck B, Sonne-Holm S, Lorenzen I. Quantification of synovitis by MRI: correlation between dynamic and static gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and microscopic and macroscopic signs of synovial inflammation. Magn Reson Imaging 1998; 16: 743–54.
- 39
Ostendorf B,
Peters R,
Dann P,
Becker A,
Scherer A,
Wedekind F, et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging and miniarthroscopy of metacarpophalangeal joints: sensitive detection of morphologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum
2001;
44:
2492–502.
10.1002/1529-0131(200111)44:11<2492::AID-ART429>3.0.CO;2-X CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 40 Bird P, Lassere M, Shnier R, Edmonds J. Computerized measurement of magnetic resonance imaging erosion volumes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with existing magnetic resonance imaging scoring systems and standard clinical outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 614–24.
- 41 Kane D, Balint PV, Sturrock RD. Ultrasonography is superior to clinical examination in the detection and localization of knee joint effusion in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 966–71.
- 42 Schmidt WA, Schmidt H, Schicke B, Gromnica-Ihle E. Standard reference values for musculoskeletal ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63: 988–94.
- 43 Descamps OS, Leysen X, van Leuven F, Heller FR. The use of Achilles tendon ultrasonography for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia. Atherosclerosis 2001; 157: 514–8.
- 44 Scheel AK, Schettler V, Koziolek M, Koelling S, Werner C, Muller GA, et al. Impact of chronic LDL-apheresis treatment on Achilles tendon affection in patients with severe familial hypercholesterolemia: a clinical and ultrasonographic 3-year follow-up study. Atherosclerosis 2004; 174: 133–9.
- 45 Soini I, Kotaniemi A, Kautiainen H, Kauppi M. US assessment of hip joint synovitis in rheumatic diseases: a comparison with MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2003; 44: 72–8.
- 46 Scherer A, Ostendorf B, Engelbrecht V, Poll LW, Becker A, Dann P, et al. MR-morphological changes of the metacarpophalangeal joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of early and chronic stages. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2001; 173: 902–7.In German.
