Can we use structural lesions seen on MRI of the sacroiliac joints reliably for the classification of patients according to the ASAS axial spondyloarthritis criteria? Data from the DESIR cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Investigating the utility of adding structural lesions seen on MRI of the sacroiliac joints to the imaging criterion of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis (ASAS) axial SpondyloArthritis (axSpA) criteria and the utility of replacement of radiographic sacroiliitis by structural lesions on MRI. METHODS: Two well-calibrated readers scored MRI STIR (inflammation, MRI-SI), MRI T1-w images (structural lesions, MRI-SI-s) and radiographs of the sacroiliac joints (X-SI) of patients in the DEvenir des Spondyloarthrites Indifférenciées Récentes cohort (inflammatory back pain: ≥3 months, <3 years, age <50). A third reader adjudicated MRI-SI and X-SI discrepancies. Previously proposed cut-offs for a positive MRI-SI-s were used (based on <5% prevalence among no-SpA patients): erosions (E) ≥3, fatty lesions (FL) ≥3, E/FL ≥5. Patients were classified according to the ASAS axSpA criteria using the various definitions of MRI-SI-s. RESULTS: Of the 582 patients included in this analysis, 418 fulfilled the ASAS axSpA criteria, of which 127 patients were modified New York (mNY) positive and 134 and 75 were MRI-SI-s positive (E/FL≥5) for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Agreement between mNY and MRI-SI-s (E/FL≥5) was moderate (reader 1: κ: 0.39; reader 2: κ: 0.44). Using the E/FL≥5 cut-off instead of mNY classification did not change in 478 (82.1%) and 469 (80.6%) patients for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Twelve (reader 1) or ten (reader 2) patients would not be classified as axSpA if only MRI-SI-s was performed (in the scenario of replacement of mNY), while three (reader 1) or six (reader 2) patients would be additionally classified as axSpA in both scenarios (replacement of mNY and addition of MRI-SI-s). Similar results were seen for the other cut-offs (E≥3, FL≥3). CONCLUSIONS: Structural lesions on MRI can be used reliably either as an addition to or as a substitute for radiographs in the ASAS axSpA classification of patients in our cohort of patients with short symptom duration.

The yield of a positive MRI of the spine as imaging criterion in the ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis: results from the SPACE and DESIR cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of spinal inflammation on MRI in patients with chronic back pain (CBP) of maximally 3 years duration and to evaluate the yield of adding a positive MRI-spine as imaging criterion to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Baseline imaging of the sacroiliac joints (X-SI), MRI of the sacroiliac joints (MRI-SI) and MRI-spine were scored by ≥2 experienced central readers per modality in the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE) and DEvenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifférenciées Récentes (DESIR) cohorts. Inflammation suggestive of axSpA was assessed in the entire spine. A positive MRI-spine was defined by the presence of ≥5 inflammatory lesions. Alternative less strict definitions were also tested. RESULTS: In this study, 541 and 650 patients with CBP from the SPACE and DESIR cohorts were included. Sacroiliitis on X-SI and MRI-SI was found in 40/541 (7%) and 76/541 (14%) patients in SPACE, and in DESIR in 134/650 (21%) and 231/650 (36%) patients, respectively. In SPACE and DESIR, a positive MRI-spine was seen in 4/541 (1%) and 48/650 (7%) patients. Of the patients without sacroiliitis on imaging, 3/447 (1%) (SPACE) and 8/382 (2%) (DESIR) patients had a positive MRI-spine. Adding positive MRI-spine as imaging criterion led to new classification in only one patient in each cohort, as the other patients already fulfilled the clinical arm. Other definitions of a positive MRI-spine yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: In two cohorts of patients with CBP with a maximum symptom duration of 3 years, a positive MRI-spine was rare in patients without sacroiliitis on MRI-SI and X-SI. Addition of MRI-spine as imaging criterion to the ASAS axSpA criteria had a low yield of newly classified patients and is therefore not recommended.

Classification of axial SpA based on positive imaging (radiographs and/or MRI of the sacroiliac joints) by local rheumatologists or radiologists versus central trained readers in the DESIR cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Investigating changes in patient classification (ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society) axSpA criteria) based on evaluation of images of the sacro-iliac joints (MRI-SI and X-SI) by local and central readers. METHODS: The DESIR cohort included patients with inflammatory back pain (IBP; ≥3 months, but <3 years), suggestive of axSpA. Local radiologists/rheumatologists (local-reading) and two central readers (central-reading) evaluated baseline images. Agreement regarding positive MRI (pos-MRI) between central readers and between local-reading and central-reading was calculated (κs). Number of patients classified differently (ASAS criteria) by using local-reading instead of central-reading was calculated. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement between the two central readers and between local-reading and central-reading was substantial (κ=0.73 and κ=0.70, respectively). In 89/663 MRI-SIs (13.4%) local-reading and central-reading disagreed; 38/223 patients (17.0%) with pos-MRI (local-reading) were negative by central-reading; 51/440 patients (11.6%) with neg-MRI (local-reading) were positive by central-reading.In 163/582 patients eligible for applying ASAS criteria (28.0%), local-reading and central-reading disagreed on positive imaging (MRI-SI and/or X-SI; κ=0.68). In 46/582 patients (7.9%) a different evaluation resulted in a different classification; 18/582 patients (3.1%) classified no-SpA (central-reading) were axSpA by local-reading; 28/582 patients (4.8%) classified axSpA (central-reading) were no-SpA by local-reading. Among axSpA patients (central-reading), 16/419 patients (3.8%) fulfilling imaging-arm by central-reading fulfilled clinical-arm by local-reading; 29/419 patients (6.9%) fulfilling clinical-arm by central-reading fulfilled also imaging-arm by local-reading. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent onset IBP, trained readers and local rheumatologists/radiologists agree well on recognising a pos-MRI. While disagreeing in 28% of the patients on positive imaging (MRI-SI and/or X-SI), classification of only 7.9% of the patients changed based on a different evaluation of images, showing the ASAS axSpA criteria's robustness.

Evaluation of the Performance of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Algorithm in Detecting Thoracic Pathologies on Chest Radiographs.

The purpose of the study was to assess the performance of readers in diagnosing thoracic anomalies on standard chest radiographs (CXRs) with and without a deep-learning-based AI tool (Rayvolve) and to evaluate the standalone performance of Rayvolve in detecting thoracic pathologies on CXRs. This retrospective multicentric study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1, nine readers independently reviewed 900 CXRs from imaging group A and identified thoracic abnormalities with and without AI assistance. A consensus from three radiologists served as the ground truth. In phase 2, the standalone performance of Rayvolve was evaluated on 1500 CXRs from imaging group B. The average values of AUC across the readers significantly increased by 15.94%, with AI-assisted reading compared to unaided reading (0.88 ± 0.01 vs. 0.759 ± 0.07, p < 0.001). The time taken to read the CXRs decreased significantly, by 35.81% with AI assistance. The average values of sensitivity and specificity across the readers increased significantly by 11.44% and 2.95% with AI-assisted reading compared to unaided reading (0.857 ± 0.02 vs. 0.769 ± 0.02 and 0.974 ± 0.01 vs. 0.946 ± 0.01, p < 0.001). From the standalone perspective, the AI model achieved an average sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.964, 0.844, 0.757, and 0.9798. The speed and performance of the readers improved significantly with AI assistance.

Is sarcopenia a missed factor in the management of patients with metastatic breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia has emerged as an important parameter to predict outcomes and treatment toxicity. However, limited data are available to assess sarcopenia prevalence in metastatic breast cancer and to evaluate its management. METHODS: The SCAN study was a cross-sectional multicenter French study that aimed to estimate sarcopenia prevalence in a real-life sample of metastatic cancer patients. Sarcopenia was identified by low muscle mass (estimated from the skeletal muscle index at the third lumbar, via computed tomography) and low muscle strength (defined by handgrip strength). Three populations were distinguished based on EWGSOP criteria: a sarcopenic group with low muscle mass AND strength, a pre-sarcopenic group with low muscle mass OR strength and a normal group with high muscle mass AND strength. RESULTS: Among 766 included patients, 139 patients with breast cancer and median age of 61.2 years (29.9-97.8 years) were evaluable; 29.5% were sarcopenic and 41.0% were pre-sarcopenic. Sarcopenic patients were older (P < 0.01), had a worse PS-score (P < 0.05), and a higher number of metastatic sites (P < 0.01), the majority being hepatic and bone. A moderate agreement between the oncologist's diagnosis and sarcopenia evaluation by muscle mass and strength was recognized (Cohen's kappa = 0.45). No associations were found between sarcopenia and adverse event occurrence in the 12 patients for whom these were reported. Sarcopenic patients were underdiagnosed and nutritional care and physical activity were less proposed. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to evaluate sarcopenia due to its impact on patient prognosis, and its utility in guiding patient management in metastatic breast cancer.

Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging in patients with recent myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a diffusion-weighted (DW) black blood MR sequence for the detection of myocardium signal abnormalities in patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: A DW black blood EPI sequence was acquired at 1.5 T in 12 patients with recent MI. One slice per patient was acquired with b=0 and b=50 s/mm2. A standard short tau inversion recovery (STIR) T2-weighted sequence was acquired at the same level. Viability was assessed with delayed-enhancement sequences. Images were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. A non parametric Wilcoxon test was used for statistical analysis, with a significance level of P<.05. RESULTS: The mean quality of blood suppression was higher on DW EPI images than on STIR T2-weighted images (3.9±0.3 and 3.0±0.7, respectively; P=0.01). Myocardial high signal areas were detected in respectively 100% (12/12) and 67% (8/12) of the patients on DW EPI and STIR T2-weighted images. The four patients (33%) with false-negative STIR T2 findings all had high signal areas on DW EPI images corresponding to the location of the MI on the delayed-enhanced images. CONCLUSION: DW EPI sequences are a feasible alternative to standard STIR T2-weighted sequences for detecting myocardium high signal areas in patients with recent MI.

What is the reliability of non-trained investigators in recognising structural MRI lesions of sacroiliac joints in patients with recent inflammatory back pain? Results of the DESIR cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of recognising structural lesions on MRI (erosions, fatty lesions, ankylosis) of the sacroiliac joints (MRI-SIJ) in clinical practice compared to a central reading in patients with a possible recent axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Patients aged 18-50 years, with recent (<3 years) and chronic (≥3 months) inflammatory back pain, suggestive of axSpA were included in the DEvenir des Spondyloarthrites Indifférenciées Récentes (DESIR) cohort. MRI-SIJ structural lesions were scored by non-trained local readers, and by two trained central readers. Local readers scored each SIJ as normal, doubtful or definite lesions. Central readers scored separately each type of lesion. The central reading (mean of the two central readers' scores) was the external standard. Agreement (κ) was calculated first between local (3 definitions of a positive MRI-SIJ) and central readings (9 definitions), and then between the two central readers. RESULTS: 664/708 patients with complete available images were included. Agreements between local and central readings were overall 'fair', except when considering at least 2 or 3 fatty lesions and at least 3 erosions and/or fatty lesions where agreement was 'moderate'. Agreement between central readers was similar. MRI-SIJ was positive for 52.6% of patients according to central reading (at least 1 structural lesion) and for 35.4% of patients according to local reading (at least unilateral 'doubtful' or 'definite' structural lesions). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement on a positive structural MRI-SIJ was fair to moderate between local and central readings, as well as between central readers. The reliability improved when fatty lesions were considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCTO 164 8907.

Agreement between clinical practice and trained central reading in reading of sacroiliac joints on plain pelvic radiographs. Results from the DESIR cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the degree of agreement between local rheumatologists/radiologists and central trained readers (external standard) on the presence/absence of sacroiliitis on radiographs of the sacroiliac (SI) joints. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory back pain (duration ≥3 months but <3 years) suggestive of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) were included in the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferérenciées Récentes (DESIR) cohort. Baseline radiographs of the SI joints were interpreted by 2 central readers (modified New York criteria); cases of disagreement were adjudicated by a third reader, yielding a positive or a negative result (central reading). The same radiographs were also interpreted by local radiologists/rheumatologists and were rated as "normal," "doubtful sacroiliitis," "obvious sacroiliitis," or "SI joint fusion" (local reading); positive findings were defined as "at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis," "bilateral obvious sacroiliitis," or "at least unilateral fusion." Agreement and misclassifications between central readers and between central reading versus local reading were calculated (kappa values). RESULTS: Interreader agreement between the central readers was moderate (κ = 0.54); 108 of 688 radiographs (15.7%) were adjudicated. According to local reading ("at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis"), 183 of the 688 patients (26.6%) had sacroiliitis, whereas according to central reading, 145 of 688 patients (21.1%) had sacroiliitis. Agreement between local reading and central reading was also moderate (κ = 0.55); 76 of 183 patients (41.5%) with "at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis" (positive by local reading) and 32 of 109 patients (29.4%) with "bilateral obvious sacroiliitis" or "at least unilateral fusion" (positive by local reading) were rated as "negative" by central reading, and 38 of 505 patients (7.5%) and 68 of 579 patients (11.7%), respectively, without sacroiliitis (negative by local reading) were interpreted as "positive" by central reading. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent-onset inflammatory back pain, both trained readers and local rheumatologists/radiologists agreed only moderately on the recognition of radiographic sacroiliitis. A significant proportion of locally recognized ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients were not confirmed as having AS by central reading (false positive), while a small minority of patients were false negative, indicating the necessity of reevaluating the role of radiographic sacroiliitis as diagnostic criterion for axial SpA.