Low‐field MRI for assessing synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Impact of Gd‐DTPA dose on synovitis scoring

References

• Cimmino M. A., Innocenti S., Livrone F., Magnaguagno F., Silvestri E., Garlaschi G. Dynamic gadolinium‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in patients with rheumatoid arthritis can discriminate active from inactive disease. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 1207–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ejbjerg B. J., Narvestad E., Jacobsen S., Thomsen H. S., Ostergaard M. Optimised, low cost, low field dedicated extremity MRI is highly specific and sensitive for synovitis and bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis wrist and finger joints: comparison with conventional high field MRI and radiography. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 1280–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindegaard H., Vallo J., Horslev‐Petersen K., Junker P., Ostergaard M. Low field dedicated magnetic resonance imaging in untreated rheumatoid arthritis of recent onset. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 770–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savnik A., Malmskov H., Thomsen H. S., Bretlau T., Graff L. B., Nielsen H., et al. MRI of the arthritic small joints: comparison of extremity MRI (0.2 T) vs high‐field MRI (1.5 T). Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1030–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taouli B., Zaim S., Peterfy C. G., Lynch J. A., Stork A., Guermazi A., et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the hand and wrist: comparison of three imaging techniques. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 937–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sugimoto H., Takeda A., Masuyama J., Furuse M. Early‐stage rheumatoid arthritis: diagnostic accuracy of MR imaging. Radiology 1996; 198: 185–92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forslind K., Larsson E. M., Eberhardt K., Johansson A., Svensson B. Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: a tool for prediction of joint damage in early rheumatoid arthritis?. Scand J Rheumatol 2004; 33: 154–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann K. G., Backhaus M., Schneider U., Labs K., Loreck D., Zuhlsdorf S., et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder joint: comparison of conventional radiography, ultrasound, and dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 3338–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai N. K., Runge V. M. Contrast use at low field: a review. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 14: 360–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elster A. D. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol 1997; 7 Suppl 5: 276–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brekenfeld C., Foert E., Hundt W., Kenn W., Lodeann K. P., Gehl H. B. Enhancement of cerebral diseases: how much contrast agent is enough? Comparison of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mmol/kg gadoteridol at 0.2 T with 0.1 mmol/kg gadoteridol at 1.5 T. Invest Radiol 2001; 36: 266–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinck P. A., Muller R. N. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium‐based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 998–1004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backhaus M., Kamradt T., Sandrock D., Loreck D., Fritz J., Wolf K. J., et al. Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 1999; 42: 1232–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Peterfy C., Conaghan P., McQueen F., Bird P., Ejbjerg B., et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Core set of MRI acquisitions, joint pathology definitions, and the OMERACT RA‐MRI scoring system. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1385–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnett F. C., Edworthy S. M., Bloch D. A., McShane D. J., Fries J. F., Cooper N. S., et al. The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1988; 31: 315–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prevoo M. L., van 't Hof M. A., Kuper H. H., van Leeuwen M. A., van de Putte L. B., van Riel P. L. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty‐eight‐joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 44–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Lorenzen I., Henriksen O. Dynamic gadolinium‐enhanced MR imaging in active and inactive immunoinflammatory gonarthritis. Acta Radiol 1994; 35: 275–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan P., Bird P., Ejbjerg B., O'Connor P., Peterfy C., McQueen F., et al. The EULAR‐OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas: the metacarpophalangeal joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 Suppl 1: i11–21
   Google Scholar
• Bird P., Conaghan P., Ejbjerg B., McQueen F., Lassere M., Peterfy C., et al. The development of the EULAR‐OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis MRI reference image atlas. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 Suppl 1: i8–10
   Google Scholar
• Wolff S. D., Balaban R. S. Assessing contrast on MR images. Radiology 1997; 202: 25–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonel H. M., Schneider P., Seemann M. D., Huegli R., Srivastav S., Lodemann K. P., et al. MR imaging of the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis using gadobenate dimeglumine. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30: 15–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Klarlund M., Lassere M., Conaghan P., Peterfy C., McQueen F., et al. Interreader agreement in the assessment of magnetic resonance images of rheumatoid arthritis wrist and finger joints – an international multicenter study. J Rheumatol 2001; 28: 1143–50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Conaghan P., Lassere M., Ostergaard M., Peterfy C., McQueen F., O'Connor P., et al. OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies. Exercise 4: an international multicenter longitudinal study using the RA‐MRI score. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1376–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan P. G., McQueen F. M., Peterfy C. G., Lassere M. N., Ejbjerg B., Bird P., et al. The evidence for magnetic resonance imaging as an outcome measure in proof‐of‐concept rheumatoid arthritis studies. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 2465–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McQueen F. M., Benton N., Perry D., Crabbe J., Robinson E., Yeoman S., et al. Bone edema scored on magnetic resonance imaging scans of the dominant carpus at presentation predicts radiographic joint damage of the hands and feet six years later in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48: 1814–27
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Ejbjerg B., Szkudlarek M. Imaging in early rheumatoid arthritis: roles of magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, conventional radiography and computed tomography. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005; 19: 91–116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Duer A., Moller U., Ejbjerg B. Magnetic resonance imaging of peripheral joints in rheumatic diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2004; 18: 861–79
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirchin M. A., Pirovano G. P., Spinazzi A. Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd‐BOPTA). An overview. Invest Radiol 1998; 33: 798–809
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ostendorf B., Peters R., Dann P., Becker A., Scherer A., Wedekind F., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and miniarthroscopy of metacarpophalangeal joints: sensitive detection of morphologic changes in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44: 2492–502
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ostergaard M., Klarlund M. Importance of timing of post‐contrast MRI in rheumatoid arthritis: what happens during the first 60 minutes after IV gadolinium‐DTPA?. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60: 1050–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ostergaard M., McQueen F. M., Bird P., Ejbjerg B., Lassere M. N., Peterfy C. G., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis advances and research priorities. J Rheumatol 2005; 32: 2462–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar