Cargando…

Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints

The objective of the study was, with multidetector computed tomography (CT) as the reference method, to determine whether bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints detected with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US), but not with radiography, rep...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Døhn, Uffe Møller, Ejbjerg, Bo J, Court-Payen, Michel, Hasselquist, Maria, Narvestad, Eva, Szkudlarek, Marcin, Møller, Jakob M, Thomsen, Henrik S, Østergaard, Mikkel
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16848914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar1995
_version_ 1782131751888355328
author Døhn, Uffe Møller
Ejbjerg, Bo J
Court-Payen, Michel
Hasselquist, Maria
Narvestad, Eva
Szkudlarek, Marcin
Møller, Jakob M
Thomsen, Henrik S
Østergaard, Mikkel
author_facet Døhn, Uffe Møller
Ejbjerg, Bo J
Court-Payen, Michel
Hasselquist, Maria
Narvestad, Eva
Szkudlarek, Marcin
Møller, Jakob M
Thomsen, Henrik S
Østergaard, Mikkel
author_sort Døhn, Uffe Møller
collection PubMed
description The objective of the study was, with multidetector computed tomography (CT) as the reference method, to determine whether bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints detected with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US), but not with radiography, represent true erosive changes. We included 17 RA patients with at least one, previously detected, radiographically invisible MCP joint MRI erosion, and four healthy control individuals. They all underwent CT, MRI, US and radiography of the 2nd to 5th MCP joints of one hand on the same day. Each imaging modality was evaluated for the presence of bone erosions in each MCP joint quadrant. In total, 336 quadrants were examined. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, respectively, for detecting bone erosions (with CT as the reference method) were 19%, 100% and 81% for radiography; 68%, 96% and 89% for MRI; and 42%, 91% and 80% for US. When the 16 quadrants with radiographic erosions were excluded from the analysis, similar values for MRI (65%, 96% and 90%) and US (30%, 92% and 80%) were obtained. CT and MRI detected at least one erosion in all patients but none in control individuals. US detected at least one erosion in 15 patients, however, erosion-like changes were seen on US in all control individuals. Nine patients had no erosions on radiography. In conclusion, with CT as the reference method, MRI and US exhibited high specificities (96% and 91%, respectively) in detecting bone erosions in RA MCP joints, even in the radiographically non-erosive joints (96% and 92%). The moderate sensitivities indicate that even more erosions than are seen on MRI and, particularly, US are present. Radiography exhibited high specificity (100%) but low sensitivity (19%). The present study strongly indicates that bone erosions, detected with MRI and US in RA patients, represent a loss of calcified tissue with cortical destruction, and therefore can be considered true bone erosions.
format Text
id pubmed-1779369
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-17793692007-01-19 Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints Døhn, Uffe Møller Ejbjerg, Bo J Court-Payen, Michel Hasselquist, Maria Narvestad, Eva Szkudlarek, Marcin Møller, Jakob M Thomsen, Henrik S Østergaard, Mikkel Arthritis Res Ther Research Article The objective of the study was, with multidetector computed tomography (CT) as the reference method, to determine whether bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints detected with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US), but not with radiography, represent true erosive changes. We included 17 RA patients with at least one, previously detected, radiographically invisible MCP joint MRI erosion, and four healthy control individuals. They all underwent CT, MRI, US and radiography of the 2nd to 5th MCP joints of one hand on the same day. Each imaging modality was evaluated for the presence of bone erosions in each MCP joint quadrant. In total, 336 quadrants were examined. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, respectively, for detecting bone erosions (with CT as the reference method) were 19%, 100% and 81% for radiography; 68%, 96% and 89% for MRI; and 42%, 91% and 80% for US. When the 16 quadrants with radiographic erosions were excluded from the analysis, similar values for MRI (65%, 96% and 90%) and US (30%, 92% and 80%) were obtained. CT and MRI detected at least one erosion in all patients but none in control individuals. US detected at least one erosion in 15 patients, however, erosion-like changes were seen on US in all control individuals. Nine patients had no erosions on radiography. In conclusion, with CT as the reference method, MRI and US exhibited high specificities (96% and 91%, respectively) in detecting bone erosions in RA MCP joints, even in the radiographically non-erosive joints (96% and 92%). The moderate sensitivities indicate that even more erosions than are seen on MRI and, particularly, US are present. Radiography exhibited high specificity (100%) but low sensitivity (19%). The present study strongly indicates that bone erosions, detected with MRI and US in RA patients, represent a loss of calcified tissue with cortical destruction, and therefore can be considered true bone erosions. BioMed Central 2006 2006-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC1779369/ /pubmed/16848914 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar1995 Text en Copyright © 2006 Døhn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in anymedium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Døhn, Uffe Møller
Ejbjerg, Bo J
Court-Payen, Michel
Hasselquist, Maria
Narvestad, Eva
Szkudlarek, Marcin
Møller, Jakob M
Thomsen, Henrik S
Østergaard, Mikkel
Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title_full Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title_fullStr Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title_full_unstemmed Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title_short Are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? A comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
title_sort are bone erosions detected by magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography true erosions? a comparison with computed tomography in rheumatoid arthritis metacarpophalangeal joints
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1779369/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16848914
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar1995
work_keys_str_mv AT døhnuffemøller areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT ejbjergboj areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT courtpayenmichel areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT hasselquistmaria areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT narvestadeva areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT szkudlarekmarcin areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT møllerjakobm areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT thomsenhenriks areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints
AT østergaardmikkel areboneerosionsdetectedbymagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographytrueerosionsacomparisonwithcomputedtomographyinrheumatoidarthritismetacarpophalangealjoints