fetching data ... 
Background: There is lack of international consensus as to what defines a structural lesion on MRI of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) typical of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the SIJ 1 . These definitions have been evaluated by 7 readers from the ASAS-MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS Classification Cohort.
Objectives: We aimed to identify quantitative cut-offs based on numbers of slices and SIJ quadrants that define a positive MRI for structural lesions typical of axSpA, the gold standard being majority central reader decision as to the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence.
Methods: MRI structural lesions meeting ASAS definitions were recorded in an eCRF that comprises global assessment (structural lesion typical of axSpA present/absent and degree of confidence (-4 (absent) to +4 (present)), and detailed scoring of lesions per SIJ quadrant. Detailed scoring was based only on assessment of DICOM images (n =148). We calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of SIJ quadrants and consecutive slices with erosion, sclerosis, and fat lesions where a majority of readers (≥4/7) agreed as to the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence (≥ +3). We tested candidate lesion definitions for predictive diagnostic utility in cases assessed after 4.4 years of follow up by the local rheumatologist.
Results: Structural lesions typical of axSpA were observed by majority read in 33 (32.4%) of 102 cases diagnosed with axSpA, and 3 (6.8%) of 44 cases without axSpA and 29 cases were assigned a high degree of confidence (≥ +3) by a majority of readers. Cut-offs achieving specificity of 95% were erosion in ≥2 consecutive slices (sensitivity 83%), erosion ≥3 SIJ quadrants (sensitivity 90%), and fat lesion (≥1cm horizontal depth) in ≥1 SIJ quadrant (sensitivity 59%) (Table). These had very high positive predictive values (>95%) for diagnosis of axSpA in cases diagnosed by the rheumatologist after 4.4 years follow up.
Conclusion: ASAS-defined erosion in ≥2 consecutive slices or in ≥3 SIJ quadrants and ASAS-defined fat lesion with depth >1cm in ≥1 SIJ quadrant are high priority candidates for defining an MRI structural lesion typical of axSpA. This will require similar assessment in additional axSpA cohorts.
REFERENCES:
[1]Maksymowych et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78:1550-8.
Majority readers agree structural lesion indicative of axSpA is present with confidence ≥3/4 is the gold-standard external reference
| Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|
| Erosion Score ≥1 SIJ qdr | 93.1 (77.2-99.2) | 80.6 (72.4-87.3) |
| Erosion Score ≥2 SIJ qdr | 93.1 (77.2-99.2) | 90.8 (84.1-95.3) |
| Erosion Score ≥3 SIJ qdr | 89.7 (72.6-97.8) | 95.8 (90.5-98.6) |
| Erosion in 2 consecutive slices | 82.8 (64.2-94.2) | 95.0 (89.3-98.1) |
| Fat lesion ≥1 SIJ qdr | 82.8 (64.2-94.2) | 81.5 (73.4-88.0) |
| Fat lesion ≥2 SIJ qdr | 69.0 (49.2-84.7) | 86.6 (79.1-92.1) |
| Fat lesion ≥3 SIJ qdr | 62.1 (42.3-79.3) | 91.6 (85.1-95.9) |
| Fat lesion in 2 consecutive slices | 55.2 (35.7-73.6) | 93.3 (87.2-97.1) |
| Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥1 | 58.6 (38.9-76.5) | 95.0 (89.3-98.1 ) |
| Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥2 | 55.2 (35.7-73.6) | 95.8 (90.5-98.6) |
| Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥3 | 51.7 (32.5-70.6) | 97.5 (92.8-99.5) |
| Fat lesion (>1cm depth) in 2 consecutive slices | 48.3 (29.4-67.5) | 97.5 (92.8-99.5) |
Table. SIJ qdr: sacroiliac joint quadrant
Disclosure of Interests: Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Joel Paschke: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB