Advertisement

Magnetic resonance imaging of the sacroiliac joints in SpA: with or without intravenous contrast media? A preliminary report

  • Francesco GentiliEmail author
  • Luca Cantarini
  • Marta Fabbroni
  • Aandrea Nigri
  • Francesco Giuseppe Mazzei
  • Bruno Frediani
  • Mauro Galeazzi
  • Luca Volterrani
  • Maria Antonietta Mazzei
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Object

Active sacroiliitis based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without intravenous (I.V.) contrast material injection is considered sufficient for the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA), according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria. This work shows the added value of administering I.V. contrast material when evaluating the response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists therapy, on the extension of bone marrow oedema (BMO) and pathological enhancement (osteitis/synovitis) in the sacroiliac joints (SIJs) on MRI.

Materials and methods

Forty-three patients (25 females and 18 males, mean age of 54 ± 16.60 years, range 22–75 years) with a clinical diagnosis of SpA and active sacroiliitis at MRI with I.V. contrast material, were considered for a follow-up MRI after 6 months of TNF antagonists therapy. Disease activity was monitored by a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Student’s t test and Cohen’s kappa were used. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Thirty-eight patients were finally included in the study; 36 of them showed an improvement on clinical assessment after therapy. Score’s difference (improvement) after treatment was calculated in the MRI sequences both with and without contrast agent (respectively, mean value and range 3.18, 0–12 with contrast and 1.63, 0–7 without contrast). This improvement was statistically significant in each group (P value of 7.097e−08 with contrast and 6.741e−06 without contrast), and there was a significant difference between the two group too (P-value of 8.598e−07). Cohen’s kappa for dichotomous variables showed a better agreement between the post-contrast MRI findings and BASDAI (K = 0.53, agreement = 92.11%, P = 0.0001) than MRI without contrast and BASDAI (K = 0.11, agreement = 57.89%, P = 0.06).

Conclusions

The evaluation of enhancement is a reliable tool for the assessment of the response to therapy in SIJs involvement in SpA, better than BMO; hence, it should be advised in the MRI of these patients.

Keywords

Sacroiliitis Spondyloarthritis Magnetic resonance imaging Treatment effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Miss Julia Hassall for reviewing the language.

Author’s contribution

Gentili F, Mazzei MA, Mazzei FG, Galeazzi M and Volterrani L were involved in protocol/project development; Gentili F, Mazzei FG, Cantarini L, Fabbroni M and Frediani B contributed to data collection or management; Mazzei MA, Gentili F, Nigri A, Cantarini L and Fabbroni M were involved in data analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Akgul O, Ozgocmen S (2011) Classification criteria for spondyloarthropathies. World J Orthop 2(12):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paparo F, Revelli M, Semprini A, Camellino D, Garlaschi A, Cimmino MA, Rollandi GA, Leone A (2014) Seronegative spondyloarthropathies: what radiologists should know. Radiol Med 119(3):156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Navallas M, Ares J, Beltrán B, Lisbona MP, Maymó J, Solano A (2013) Sacroiliitis associated with axial spondyloarthropathy: new concepts and latest trends. Radiographics 33(4):933–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wendling D, Prati C, Claudepierre P, Guillot X, Breban M (2012) Non-radiographic spondyloarthritis: a theoretical concept or a real entity? Joint Bone Spine 79(6):531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Puhakka KB, Jurik AG, Egund N, Schiottz-Christensen B, Stengaard-Pedersen K, van Overeem Hansen G, Christiansen JV (2003) Imaging of sacroiliitis in early seronegative spondylarthropathy. Assessment of abnormalities by MR in comparison with radiography and CT. Acta Radiol 44(2):218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Hooge M, van den Berg R, Navarro-Compán V, van Gaalen F, van der Heijde D, Huizinga T, Reijnierse M (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging of the sacroiliac joints in the early detection of spondyloarthritis: no added value of gadolinium compared with short tau inversion recovery sequence. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52(7):1220–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wendling D, Prati C, Claudepierre P, Guillot X, Breban M (2012) Non-radiographic spondyloarthritis: a theoretical concept or a real entity? Joint Bone Spine 79(6):531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawford M, Curtis JR (2008) Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and infection complications. Curr Rheumatol Rep 10(5):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carmona R, Harish S, Linda DD, Ioannidis G, Matsos M, Khalidi NA (2013) MR imaging of the spine and sacroiliac joints for spondyloarthritis: influence on clinical diagnostic confidence and patient management. Radiology 269(1):208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pascual-Salcedo D, Plasencia C, Jurado T, Del Valle L, Prado S et al (2015) Dose-tapering Of TNF inhibitors in daily rheumatology practice enables the maintenance of clinical efficacy while improving cost-effectiveness. J Pharmacovigilance 3:172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mandl P, Navarro-Compán V, Terslev L et al (2015) EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 74:1327–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui Y, Zheng J, Zhang X, Zeng H, Luo R (2016) Evaluation of treatments for sacroiliitis in spondyloarthropathy using the spondyloarthritis research consortium Canada scoring system. Arthritis research & therapy 18:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marchesoni A, D’Angelo S, Anzidei M, Bortolotti R, Cantini F, Caramella D et al. SHARE Study Group (2018) Radiologist-rheumatologist multidisciplinary approach in the management of axial spondyloarthritis: a Delphi consensus statement. Clin Exp Rheumatol. Nov 16. PubMed PMID: 30557127Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biondi M, Vanzi E, De Otto G, Banci Buonamici F, Belmonte GM, Mazzoni LN et al (2016) Water/cortical bone decomposition: a new approach in dual energy CT imaging for bone marrow oedema detection. A Feasibility Study 32(12):1712–1716Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mazzei MA, Volterrani L (2015) Errors in multidetector row computed tomography. Radiol Med 120(9):785–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Hooge M, van den Berg R, Navarro-Compán V, van Gaalen F, van der Heijde D, Huizinga T, Reijnierse M (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging of the sacroiliac joints in the early detection of spondyloarthritis: no added value of gadolinium compared with short tau inversion recovery sequence. Rheumatology (Oxford) 52(7):1220–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maksymowicz H, Kowalewski K, Lubkowska K, Zołud W, Sąsiadek M (2010) Diagnostic value of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of active sacroiliitis in seronegative spondyloarthropathy. Pol J Radiol 75(2):58–65Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giraudo C, Weber M, Puchner A, Grisar J, Kainberger F, Schueller-Weidekamm C (2017) Which MR sequences should we use for the reliable detection and localization of bone marrow edema in spondyloarthritis? Radiol Med 122(10):752–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Althoff CE, Feist E, Burova E, Eshed I, Bollow M, Hamm B, Hermann KG (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of active sacroiliitis: do we really need gadolinium? Eur J Radiol 71(2):232–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cruickshank B (1951) Histopathology of diarthrodial joints in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 10:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Engfeldt B, Romanus R, Yden S (1954) Histological studies of pelvo-spondylitis ossificans (ankylosing spondylitis) correlated with clinical and radiological findings. Ann Rheum Dis 13:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ball J (1971) Enthesopathy of rheumatoid and ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 30:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poole AR (1998) The histopathology of ankylosing spondylitis: are there unifying hypotheses? Am J Med Sci 316:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fournié B (2004) Pathology and clinico-pathologic correlations in spondyloarthropathies. Joint Bone Spine 71:525–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fioravanti A, Cantarini L, Burroni L, Mazzei MA, Volterrani L, Galeazzi M (2008) Efficacy of alendronate in the treatment of the SAPHO syndrome. J Clin Rheumatol 14(3):183–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benjamin M, McGonagle D (2009) The enthesis organ concept and its relevance to the spondyloarthropathies. Adv Exp Med Biol 649:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    François RJ, Gardner DL, Degrave EJ, Bywaters EG (2000) Histopathologic evidence that sacroiliitis in ankylosing spondylitis is not merely enthesitis. Arthritis Rheum 43:2011–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gong Y, Zheng N, Chen S, Xiao Z, Wu M, Liu Y, Zeng QY (2012) Ten years’ experience on needle biopsy in the early diagnosis of sacroiliitis. Arthritis Rheum 64:1399–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maksymowych WP (2000) Ankylosing spondylitis–at the interface of bone and cartilage. J Rheumatol 27:2295–2301Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baeten D, Demetter P, Cuvelier C, Van Den Bosch F, Kruithof E, Van Damme N et al (2000) Comparative study of the synovial histology in rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathy, and osteoarthritis: influence of disease duration and activity. Ann Rheum Dis 59:945–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Volterrani L, Mazzei MA, Giordano N, Nuti R, Galeazzi M, Fioravanti A (2008) Magnetic resonance imaging in Tietze’s syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol 26(5):848–853Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang DM, Lin L, Peng JH, Gong Y, Hou ZD, Chen SB, Xiao ZY (2018) Pannus inflammation in sacroiliitis following immune pathological injury and radiological structural damage: a study of 193 patients with spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 20(1):120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pedersen SJ, Sørensen IJ, Garnero P, Johansen JS, Madsen OR, Tvede N et al (2011) ASDAS, BASDAI and different treatment responses and their relation to biomarkers of inflammation, cartilage and bone turnover in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with TNFα inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis 70(8):1375–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P (1998) The OMERACT filter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 25(2):198–199Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pedersen SJ, Sørensen IJ, Hermann KG, Madsen OR, Tvede N, Hansen MS et al (2010) Responsiveness of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and clinical and MRI measures of disease activity in a 1-year follow-up study of patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors. Ann Rheum Dis 69(6):1065–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rudwaleit M, Schwarzlose S, Hilgert ES, Listing J, Braun J, Sieper J (2008) MRI in predicting a major clinical response to anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 67(9):1276–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Gentili
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luca Cantarini
    • 2
  • Marta Fabbroni
    • 2
  • Aandrea Nigri
    • 3
  • Francesco Giuseppe Mazzei
    • 4
  • Bruno Frediani
    • 2
  • Mauro Galeazzi
    • 2
  • Luca Volterrani
    • 1
  • Maria Antonietta Mazzei
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicalSurgical and Neuro Sciences, Diagnostic Imaging, University of Siena, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria SeneseSienaItaly
  2. 2.Rheumatology UnitResearch Center of Systemic Autoimmune and Autoinflammatory Diseases, University of Siena, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria SeneseSienaItaly
  3. 3.Faculty of StatisticsSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.Diagnostic Imaging, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria SeneseSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations