Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2331040976
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mosher, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mosher, T. J.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article
(Radiology 2004;233:1-2.)


Science to Practice

Imaging of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Can MR Imaging be Used to Monitor Cellular Response of Disease?

Timothy J. Mosher, MD

Department of Radiology, MC H066, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Dr, Hershey, PA 17033. tmosher@psu.edu.



View larger version (122K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Timothy J. Mosher, MD

 
The Setting

Current application of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials has been focused on detection of bony erosions and assessment of synovial volume and joint effusion as measures of synovial inflammation—that is, detection and monitoring of tissue response to disease (1). As therapy moves from minimizing synovial inflammation to targeting specific disease pathways, the next step is to use MR imaging to detect and monitor cellular response of the disease. In this issue of Radiology, Lutz et al (2) report promising results using ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) particles to evaluate phagocytic macrophage activity in an experimental rabbit model of antigen-induced arthritis.



View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
 
The Science

The trend in the treatment of patients with RA is early and aggressive use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that are targeted at critical elements within the inflammatory cascade (3,4). Because MR imaging can provide information on soft-tissue inflammation of the joint, it provides a sensitive measure of early disease activity and has been recommended as an outcomes measure in clinical trials on RA (5). The aim of using DMARDs in the treatment of RA is to block the effects of inflammatory cytokines that lead to synovial proliferation and joint destruction through activation of synovial fibroblasts and matrix metalloproteinases. Two key cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-{alpha} and interleukin-1ß, are produced by activated macrophages that reside within the inflamedsynovium. There is growing evidence that synovial macrophages play a central role in RA. Results of recent studies demonstrate a marked reduction in macrophage content of the synovial membrane in patients with RA who achieve clinical remission induced with use of DMARD therapy (6). These reports provide a theoretical basis for using synovial macrophage content as a relevant marker of disease activity.

Because of their small size, USPIO particles are able to extravasate through capillary pores and are well suited for targeting synovial macrophages. Results from the study of Lutz et al (2) demonstrate the feasibility of using clinical MR imaging both to detect changes in synovial contrast following intravenous USPIO administration in an accepted model of RA and to localize uptake of the iron oxide particles in macrophages. While no change in synovial contrast enhancement was identified in control joints, a statistically significant decrease in signal intensity (P < .05) was observed in the inflamed joint on both T2- and T2*-weighted MR images. Results of histologic evaluation demonstrated uptake of iron particles within synovial macrophages of the inflamed joint but not within the contralateral control joint or within the joints of control animals.

The Practice

Clinical use.—USPIO agents are currently undergoing clinical trials for evaluation as targeted lymph node contrast agents, primarily for the detection of regional lymphadenopathy in patients with cancer. As the results of Lutz et al demonstrate, these agents have potential clinical application in the evaluation of inflammatory arthropathies. Phagocytosis of the paramagnetic iron oxide within cells distorts the local magnetic field, which produces signal loss on T2*-weighted images. Because the field distortion extends beyond the confines of the cell, the T2* changes are detectable with relatively low spatial resolution that is achievable on current clinical MR imagers, thereby making USPIOs useful in targeted contrast agents.

Future opportunities and challenges.—Application of macrophage-targeted contrast agents may provide valuable information on the underlying pathogenesis of RA and may provide a sensitive and specific image marker to monitor disease activity. Prior to the application of these techniques to human clinical trials, it will be necessary to validate USPIO uptake in macrophages of patients with RA, determine the responsiveness of the technique to changes in disease activity, and demonstrate reproducibility within a more heterogeneous human population. Because of the strong field dependence of T2* contrast enhancement, future application of USPIO agents with 3.0-T clinical MR imaging is likely to further increase sensitivity and provide opportunity for greater spatial resolution. Results of the study of Lutz et al (2) support development of human clinical trials to evaluate the role of USPIO particles in RA.

Summary

By using methods achievable with routine clinical MR imagers, Lutz et al (2) have shown that intravenous administration of USPIO particles provides a valuable image marker of macrophage content within inflamed synovium. With the continuing development of new DMARDs directed toward suppressing synovial macrophage activity, the ability to noninvasively detect and monitor synovial macrophage content has high clinical and research importance.

FOOTNOTES

See also the article by Lutz et al in this issue.

REFERENCES

  1. Ostergaard M, Ejbjerg B, Stoltenberg M, et al. Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging as marker of synovial membrane regeneration and recurrence of synovitis after arthroscopic knee joint synovectomy: a 1 year follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60:233-236.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Lutz AM, Seemayer C, Corot C, et al. Detection of synovial macrophages in an experimental rabbit model of antigen-induced arthritis: ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2004; 233:149-157.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Klareskog L, van der Heijde D, de Jager JP, et al. Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 363:675-681.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Puolakka K, Kautiainen H, Mottonen T, et al. Impact of initial aggressive drug treatment with a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on the development of work disability in early rheumatoid arthritis: a 5-year randomized followup trial. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 50:55-62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. McQueen F, Lassere M, Edmonds J, et al. OMERACT rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging studies: summary of OMERACT 6 MR imaging module. J Rheumatol 2003; 30:1387-1392.[Medline]
  6. Smith MD, Kraan MC, Slavotinek J, et al. Treatment-induced remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients is characterized by a reduction in macrophage content of synovial biopsies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2001; 40:367-374.

Related Article

Detection of Synovial Macrophages in an Experimental Rabbit Model of Antigen-induced Arthritis: Ultrasmall Superparamagnetic Iron Oxide–enhanced MR Imaging
Amelie M. Lutz, Christian Seemayer, Claire Corot, Renate E. Gay, Kerstin Goepfert, Beat A. Michel, Borut Marincek, Steffen Gay, and Dominik Weishaupt
Radiology 2004 233: 149-157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mosher, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mosher, T. J.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE