Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 119, Issue 6, pp 422–431 | Cite as

MR and CEUS monitoring of patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents: a preliminary study

  • Roberto Stramare
  • Alessandro CoranEmail author
  • Alex Faccinetto
  • Giulia Costantini
  • Livio Bernardi
  • Costantino Botsios
  • Egle Perissinotto
  • Enrico Grisan
  • Valeria Beltrame
  • Bernd Raffeiner
Magnetic Resonance

Abstract

Purpose

This study was done to propose a study protocol for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological agents, by evaluating the contribution of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (CE-MR) imaging, a software programme that calculates the volume of synovitis on CE-MR images, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).

Materials and methods

Sixteen patients with RA receiving treatment with biologics were analysed. The patients underwent clinical examination, CE-MR imaging and CEUS on the same day. Images were postprocessed with the software and evaluated independently by three physicians in terms of RAMRIS (Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score), SAMIS (Simplified Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score) and CEUS grade. The techniques were correlated statistically.

Results

The RAMRIS and SAMIS scores were found to correlate statistically. CE-MR imaging correlated with the clinical data (p < 0.05), whereas CEUS did not. The data provided by the software did not correlate statistically with the other techniques. The most painful joint was consistently found to be the joint with most synovitis.

Conclusions

CE-MR imaging may be used prior to treatment and for long-term follow-up. CEUS might be useful in the short-term follow-up, as it seems to provide an indication of the presence or absence of disease, though not of its severity. The software is a very useful tool that can supplement, but not replace, the other techniques.

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis MR CEUS US 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Roberto Stramare, Alessandro Coran, Alex Faccinetto, Giulia Costantini, Livio Bernardi, Costantino Botsios, Egle Perissinotto, Enrico Grisan, Valeria Beltrame and Bernd Raffeiner declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Alamanos Y, Drosos AA (2005) Epidemiology of adult rheumatoid arthritis. Autoimmun Rev 4(3):130–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D 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
  3. 3.
    Firestein GS (1999) Starving the synovium: angiogenesis and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Invest 103:3–4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stronger CM, Steak DG, Junky A et al (1999) Decreased angiogenesis and arthritic disease in rabbits treated with an alphavbeta3 antagonist. J Clin Invest 103:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Tuyl LH, Lems WF, Voskuyl AE et al (2008) Tight control and intensified COBRA combination treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis: 90 % remission in a pilot trial. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1574–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klauser A, Demharter J, De Marchi A et al (2005) The IACUS study group. Contrast-enhanced gray-scale sonography in assessment of joint vascularity in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the IACUS study group. Euro Radiol 15:2404–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arnett FC, Edworthy SM, Bloch DA et al (1988) The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 31:315–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wakefield RJ, Brown AK, O’Connor PJ et al (2003) Power Doppler sonography: improving disease activity assessment in inflammatory musculoskeletal disease. Arthritis Rheum 48:285–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stone M, Bergin D, Whelan B et al (2001) Power Doppler ultrasound assessment of rheumatoid hand synovitis. J Rheumatol 28:1979–1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmidt WA, Volker L, Zacher J et al (2000) Colour Doppler ultrasonography to detect pannus in knee joint synovitis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 18:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirohata S, Sakakibara J (1999) Angioneogenesis as a possible elusive trigger factor in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 353:1331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hermann KG, Backhaus M, Schneider U et al (2003) Rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder joint: comparison of conventional radiography, ultrasound, and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 48:3338–3349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiocco U, Ferro F, Cozzi L et al (2003) Contrast medium in power Doppler ultrasound for assessment of synovial vascularity: comparison with arthroscopy. J Rheumatol 30:2170–2176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suter LG, Fraenkel L, Braithwaite RS (2011) Cost-effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to rheumatoid arthritis management. Arch Intern Med 171:657–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suter LG, Fraenkel L, Braithwaite RS (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and prognosis of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63:675–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McQueen F, Lassere M, Edmonds J et al (2003) OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies. Summary of OMERACT 6 MR imaging module. Rheumatol 30:1387–1392Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cyteval C, Miquel A, Hoa D (2010) Rheumatoid arthritis of the hand: monitoring with a simplified MR imaging scoring method—preliminary assessment. Radiology 256:863–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Østergaard M, Peterfy C, Conaghan P et al (2003) OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies: core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA-MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 30:1385–1386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scott DL, Laasonen L, Priolo F et al (1997) The radiological assessment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 15:S53–S61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stramare R, Raffeiner B, Ciprian L et al (2012) Evaluation of finger joint synovial vascularity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using contrast-enhanced ultrasound with water immersion and a stabilized probe. J Clin Ultrasound 40:147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leech SJ, Gukhool J, Blaivas M (2003) ED ultrasound evaluation of the index flexor tendon: a comparison of water bath evaluation technique (WET) versus direct contact ultrasound. Acad Emerg Med 10:573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van der Heide A, Jacobs JW, Bijlsma JW et al (1996) The effectiveness of early treatment with “second-line” antirheumatic drugs: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 124:699–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nell VP, Machold KP, Eberl G et al (2004) Benefit of very early referral and very early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43:906–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aletaha D, Funovits J, Keystone EC, Smolen JS (2007) Disease activity early in the course of treatment predicts response to therapy after one year in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Rheum 56:3226–3235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Möttönen T, Hannonen P, Leirisalo-Repo M et al (1999) Comparison of combination therapy with single drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial—FIN-RACo trial group. Lancet 353:1568–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Narváez JA, Narváez J, De Lama E, De Albert M (2010) MR imaging of early rheumatoid arthritis. Radiographic 30:143–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ostergaard M, Hansen M, Stoltenberg M et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging-determined synovial membrane volume as a marker of disease activity and a predictor of progressive joint destruction in the wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 42:918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zeman MN, Scott PJ (2012) Current imaging strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2:174–220PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sommer OJ, Kladosek A, Weiler V et al (2005) Rheumatoid arthritis: a practical guide to state-of-the-art imaging, image interpretation, and clinical implications. Radiographics 25:381–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Freeston JE, Bird P, Conaghan PG (2009) The role of MRI in rheumatoid arthritis: research and clinical issues. Curr Opin Rheumatol 21:95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee SH, Suh J-S, Shin MJ et al (2008) Quantitative assessment of synovial vascularity using contrast-enhanced Power Doppler ultrasonography: correlation with histologic findings and MR imaging findings in arthritic rabbit knee model. Korean J Radiol 9:45–52PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Stramare
    • 1
  • Alessandro Coran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alex Faccinetto
    • 1
  • Giulia Costantini
    • 1
  • Livio Bernardi
    • 2
  • Costantino Botsios
    • 2
  • Egle Perissinotto
    • 3
  • Enrico Grisan
    • 4
  • Valeria Beltrame
    • 1
  • Bernd Raffeiner
    • 5
  1. 1.Section of Radiology, Department of MedicineUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Rheumatology Unit, Department of MedicineUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  5. 5.Rheumatology Unit, Department of MedicineGeneral Hospital of BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations