Detection of bone erosions in early rheumatoid arthritis: 3D ultrasonography versus computed tomography
- 323 Downloads
Three-dimensional (3D) volumetric ultrasonography (US) is an interesting tool that could improve the traditional approach to musculoskeletal US in rheumatology, due to its virtual operator independence and reduced examination time. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of 3DUS in the detection of bone erosions in hand and wrist joints of early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) patients, with computed tomography (CT) as the reference method. Twenty ERA patients without erosions on standard radiography of hands and wrists underwent 3DUS and CT evaluation of eleven joints: radiocarpal, intercarpal, ulnocarpal, second to fifth metacarpo-phalangeal (MCP), and second to fifth proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints of dominant hand. Eleven (55.0 %) patients were erosive with CT and ten of them were erosive also at 3DUS evaluation. In five patients, 3DUS identified cortical breaks that were not erosions at CT evaluation. Considering CT as the gold standard to identify erosive patients, the 3DUS sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 0.9, 0.55, 0.71, and 0.83, respectively. A total of 32 erosions were detected with CT, 15 of them were also observed at the same sites with 3DUS, whereas 17 were not seen on 3DUS evaluation. The majority of these 3DUS false-negative erosions were in the wrist joints. Furthermore, 18 erosions recorded by 3DUS were false positive. The majority of these 3DUS false-positive erosions were located at PIP joints. This study underlines the limits of 3DUS in detecting individual bone erosion, mostly at the wrist, despite the good sensitivity in identifying erosive patients.
Keywords3D ultrasound Computed tomography Erosions Rheumatoid arthritis
The study was supported by ASRALES foundation.
Conflict of interest
The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
All enrolled patients gave their written informed consent prior to inclusion into the study.
- 4.Døhn UM, Ejbjerg B, Boonen A, Hetland ML, Hansen MS, Knudsen LS et al (2011) No overall progression and occasional repair of erosions despite persistent inflammation in adalimumab-treated rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from a longitudinal comparative MRI, ultrasonography, CT and radiography study. Ann Rheum Dis 70:252–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Baillet A, Gaujoux VC, Mouterde G, Pham T, Tebib J, Saraux A et al (2011) Comparison of the efficacy of sonography, magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiography for the detection of bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 50:1137–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Døhn UM, Ejbjerg BJ, Court-Payen M, Hasselquist M, Narvestad E, Szkudlarek M et al (2006) Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints. Arthritis Res Ther 8:R110PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Filippucci E, Meenagh G, Delle Sedie A, Salaffi F, Riente L, Iagnocco A et al (2009) Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XX. Sonographic assessment of hand and wrist joint involvement in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison between two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography. Clin Exp Rheumatol 27:197–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Naredo E, Acebes C, Brito E, de Agustin JJ, de Miguel E, Mayordomo L et al (2013) Ultrasound School of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology. Three-dimensional volumetric ultrasound: a valid method for blinded assessment of response to therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 40:253–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D, Loreck D, Fritz J, Wolf KJ et al (1999) Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 42:1232–1245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Conaghan PG, O’Connor P, Mc Gonagle D, Astin P, Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW et al (2003) Elucidation of the relationship between synovitis and bone damage: a randomized magnetic resonance imaging study of individual joints in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 48:64–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Brown AK, Quinn MA, Karim Z, Conaghan PG, Peterfy CG, Hensor E et al (2006) Presence of significant synovytis in rheumatoid arthritis patients with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-induced clinical remission: evidence from an imaging study may explain structural progression. Arthritis Rheum 54:3761–3773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar