Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281671
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography for the Detection of Joint Vascularity in Arthritis – Subjective Grading Versus Computer-Aided Objective Quantification
Kontrastmittelverstärkte Ultrasonografie zum Nachweis der Gelenksvaskularisation bei Arthritis – subjektive Graduierung versus computergestützte objektive QuantifizierungPublication History
received: 22.2.2011
accepted: 8.7.2011
Publication Date:
05 September 2011 (online)

Zusammenfassung
Ziel: Vergleich der Bestimmung von Gelenksentzündungen zwischen subjektiver Graduierung in der Power-Dopplersonografie (PDUS) und kontrastmittelverstärkten Ultrasonografie (CEUS) und der computergestützten objektiven CEUS-Quantifizierung. Material und Methoden: 37 Gelenke von 28 Patienten mit Arthritiden unterschiedlicher Ätiologien wurden durch B-Bild-Ultrasonografie, PDUS und CEUS unter Verwendung eines Kontrastmittels der zweiten Generation untersucht. Die synoviale Dicke, das Ausmaß des vaskularisierten Pannus und die Intensität der Vaskularisation wurden in einem 4-Punkt PDUS- und CEUS-Gradierungssystem eingeschlossen. Die subjektiven CEUS- und PDUS-Punkte wurden mit der computergestützten objektiven CEUS-Quantifizierung mittels Qontrast®-Software zur Berechnung der Signalstärke (SI) und der SI-Rate der Kontrastverstärkung verglichen. Ergebnisse: Die Interobserverübereinstimmung für die subjektive Punktevergabe war gut bis hervorragend (κ = 0.8 – 1.0; p < 0,0001). Die computergestützte CEUS-Quantifizierung zeigte eine statistisch signifikante Korrelation mit der subjektiven CEUS- (p < 0,001) und PDUS-Graduierung (p < 0,05). Die Qontrast®-SI-Rate korrelierte sowohl mit der subjektiven CEUS- (p < 0,02) als auch mit der PDUS-Graduierung (p < 0,03). Die klinische Aktivität korrelierte weder mit der Vaskularisation noch mit der synovialen Verdickung (jeweils p = n. s.) und es konnte keine Korrelation zwischen synovialer Verdickung und dem Ausmaß der Vaskularisation festgestellt werden, weder mit PDUS noch mit CEUS (jeweils p = n. s.). Schlussfolgerung: Beides, sowohl die subjektive CEUS-Quantifizierung als auch die objektive CEUS-Quantifizierung erweisen sich wertvoll für die Bestimmung der Gelenksvaskularisation bei Arthritis und die computergestützte CEUS kann eine geeignete objektive Methode in der Therapienachsorge bei Arthritis darstellen.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare joint inflammation assessment using subjective grading of power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) versus computer-aided objective CEUS quantification. Materials and Methods: 37 joints of 28 patients with arthritis of different etiologies underwent B-mode ultrasonography, PDUS, and CEUS using a second-generation contrast agent. Synovial thickness, extent of vascularized pannus and intensity of vascularization were included in a 4-point PDUS and CEUS grading system. Subjective CEUS and PDUS scores were compared to computer-aided objective CEUS quantification using Qontrast® software for the calculation of the signal intensity (SI) and the ratio of SI for contrast enhancement. Results: The interobserver agreement for subjective scoring was good to excellent (κ = 0.8 – 1.0; P < 0.0001). Computer-aided objective CEUS quantification correlated statistically significantly with subjective CEUS (P < 0.001) and PDUS grading (P < 0.05). The Qontrast® SI ratio correlated with subjective CEUS (P < 0.02) and PDUS grading (P < 0.03). Clinical activity did not correlate with vascularity or synovial thickening (P = N. S.) and no correlation between synovial thickening and vascularity extent could be found, neither using PDUS nor CEUS (P = N. S.). Conclusion: Both subjective CEUS grading and objective CEUS quantification are valuable for assessing joint vascularity in arthritis and computer-aided CEUS quantification may be a suitable objective tool for therapy follow-up in arthritis.
Key words
Arthritis - Compute-aided quantification - contrast-enhanced ultrasonography
References
- 1
Hootman J M, Helmick C G.
Projections of US prevalence of arthritis and associated activity limitations.
Arthritis Rheum.
2006;
54
226-229
MissingFormLabel
- 2
Ostergaard M, Hansen M, Stoltenberg M et al.
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.
1999;
42
918-929
MissingFormLabel
- 3
Conaghan P G, O’Connor P, McGonagle D et al.
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.
2003;
48
64-71
MissingFormLabel
- 4
McQueen F M, Stewart N, Crabbe J et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in early rheumatoid arthritis reveals progression
of erosions despite clinical improvement.
Ann Rheum Dis.
1999;
58
156-163
MissingFormLabel
- 5
Iagnocco A, Epis O, Delle Sedie A et al.
Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist. XVII. Role of colour Doppler and power
Doppler.
Clin Exp Rheumatol.
2008;
26
759-762
MissingFormLabel
- 6
Walther M, Harms H, Krenn V et al.
Correlation of power Doppler sonography with vascularity of the synovial tissue of
the knee joint in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
2001;
44
331-338
MissingFormLabel
- 7
Forsberg F, Ro R J, Potoczek M et al.
Assessment of angiogenesis: implications for ultrasound imaging.
Ultrasonics.
2004;
42
325-330
MissingFormLabel
- 8
Quaia E.
Contrast-specific ultrasound techniques.
Radiol Med.
2007;
112
473-490
MissingFormLabel
- 9
Klauser A, Demharter J, De Marchi A et al.
Contrast enhanced gray-scale sonography in assessment of joint vascularity in rheumatoid
arthritis: results from the IACUS study group.
Eur Radiol.
2005;
15
2404-2410
MissingFormLabel
- 10
Song I H, Althoff C E, Hermann K G et al.
Knee osteoarthritis. Efficacy of a new method of contrast-enhanced musculoskeletal
ultrasonography in detection of synovitis in patients with knee osteoarthritis in
comparison with magnetic resonance imaging.
Ann Rheum Dis.
2008;
67
19-25
MissingFormLabel
- 11
Meenagh G, Filippucci E, Delle Sedie A et al.
Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist. XVIII. Ultrasound measurements.
Clin Exp Rheumatol.
2008;
26
982-985
MissingFormLabel
- 12
Ostergaard M, Szkudlarek M.
Ultrasonography: a valid method for assessing rheumatoid arthritis?.
Arthritis Rheum.
2005;
52
681-686
MissingFormLabel
- 13
Wakefield R J, Balint P V, Szkudlarek M et al.
Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology.
J Rheumatol.
2005;
32
2485-2487
MissingFormLabel
- 14
Arnett F C, Edworthy S M, Bloch D A et al.
The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of
rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
1988;
31
315-324
MissingFormLabel
- 15
Dougados M, Linden van der S, Juhlin R et al.
The European Spondylarthropathy Study Group preliminary criteria for the classification
of spondylarthropathy.
Arthritis Rheum.
1991;
34
1218-1227
MissingFormLabel
- 16
Linden van der S, Valkenburg H A, Cats A.
Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification
of the New York criteria.
Arthritis Rheum.
1984;
27
361-368
MissingFormLabel
- 17
Olive A, del Blanco J, Pons M et al.
The clinical spectrum of remitting seronegative symmetrical synovitis with pitting
edema. The Catalan Group for the Study of RS 3PE.
J Rheumatol.
1997;
24
333-336
MissingFormLabel
- 18
Delle Sedie A, Riente L, Bombardieri S.
Limits and perspectives of ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of rheumatic
diseases.
Mod Rheumatol.
2008;
18
125-131
MissingFormLabel
- 19
Koski J M, Saarakkala S, Helle M et al.
Assessing the intra- and inter-reader reliability of dynamic ultrasound images in
power Doppler ultrasonography.
Ann Rheum Dis.
2006;
65
1658-1660
MissingFormLabel
- 20
Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S et al.
Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid
arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
2003;
48
955-962
MissingFormLabel
- 21
Klauser A, Frauscher F, Schirmer M et al.
The value of contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound in the detection of vascularization
of finger joints in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
2002;
46
647-653
MissingFormLabel
- 22
Milosavljevic J, Lindqvist U, Elvin A.
Ultrasound and power Doppler evaluation of the hand and wrist in patients with psoriatic
arthritis.
Acta Radiol.
2005;
46
374-385
MissingFormLabel
- 23
Mouterde G, Carotti M, D’Agostino M A.
[Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in musculoskeletal diseases].
J Radiol.
2009;
90
148-155
MissingFormLabel
- 24
Schueller-Weidekamm C, Krestan C, Schueller G et al.
Power Doppler sonography and pulse-inversion harmonic imaging in evaluation of rheumatoid
arthritis synovitis.
Am J Roentgenol.
2007;
188
504-508
MissingFormLabel
- 25
Song I H, Althoff C E, Hermann K G et al.
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in monitoring the efficacy of a bradykinin receptor 2
antagonist in painful knee osteoarthritis compared with MRI.
Ann Rheum Dis.
2009;
68
75-83
MissingFormLabel
- 26
Ellegaard K, Torp-Pedersen S, Holm C C et al.
Ultrasound in finger joints: findings in normal subjects and pitfalls in the diagnosis
of synovial disease.
Ultraschall in Med.
2007;
28
401-408
MissingFormLabel
- 27
Wells G A, Boers M, Shea B et al.
Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary definition.
J Rheumatol.
2005;
32
2016-2024
MissingFormLabel
- 28
Blomley M, Kiely P, Harvey C J et al.
Microbubble contrast in transrectal biopsy.
Lancet.
2001;
358
1643, author reply 1643-1644
MissingFormLabel
- 29
Carotti M, Salaffi F, Manganelli P et al.
Power Doppler sonography in the assessment of synovial tissue of the knee joint in
rheumatoid arthritis: a preliminary experience.
Ann Rheum Dis.
2002;
61
877-882
MissingFormLabel
- 30
Strunk J, Strube K, Rumbaur C et al.
Interobserver agreement in two- and three-dimensional power Doppler sonographic assessment
of synovial vascularity during anti-inflammatory treatment in patients with rheumatoid
arthritis.
Ultraschall in Med.
2007;
28
409-415
MissingFormLabel
- 31
Albrecht K, Grob K, Lange U et al.
Reliability of different Doppler ultrasound quantification methods and devices in
the assessment of therapeutic response in arthritis.
Rheumatology (Oxford).
2008;
47
1521-1526
MissingFormLabel
- 32
Naredo E, Moller I, Cruz A et al.
Power Doppler ultrasonographic monitoring of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor
therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
2008;
58
2248-2256
MissingFormLabel
- 33
Szkudlarek M, Klarlund M, Narvestad E et al.
Ultrasonography of the metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joints in
rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging, conventional radiography
and clinical examination.
Arthritis Res Ther.
2006;
8
R52
MissingFormLabel
- 34
Scheel A K, Hermann K G, Kahler E et al.
A novel ultrasonographic synovitis scoring system suitable for analyzing finger joint
inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis.
Arthritis Rheum.
2005;
52
733-743
MissingFormLabel
Dr. Marius C Wick
Department of Radiology, Innsbruck Medical University
Anichstrasse 35
A-6020 Innsbruck
Phone: ++ 43/5 12/50 48 00 77
Fax: ++ 43/5 12/50 42 27 58
Email: marius.wick@i-med.ac.at