Department of Rheumatology, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Correspondence to: M. Tomi
, Department of Rheumatology, University Clinical Centre, Vodnikova 62, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: matija.tomsic{at}guest.arnes.si
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods. In 218 consecutive patients with suspected SS, US of both parotid and submandibular salivary glands was performed besides the regular diagnostic procedure following the AmericanEuropean Consensus Group criteria of 2002. Five US parameters were assessed: echogenicity, inhomogeneity, number of hypoechogenic areas, the hyperechogenic reflections and clearness of the borders of the salivary gland. The grades of these five parameters for all four salivary glands were summed. The final US score ranged from 0 to 48.
Results. SS was established in 68 patients. The remaining 150 subjects, in whom SS was not confirmed, constituted our control group. All five US parameters were significantly associated with SS. The patients with SS had significantly higher US scores than those not diagnosed with SS (P<0.01). Setting the cut-off US score at 17 resulted in the best ratio of specificity (98.7%) to sensitivity (58.8%).
Conclusions. Well-defined US changes in the major salivary glands summarized in our novel scoring system were typical of SS patients. Advanced structural changes found on US imaging almost invariably represent SS salivary gland involvement.
KEY WORDS: Diagnosis, Major salivary glands, Ultrasonography
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In the past three decades many sets of criteria for diagnosing SS have been proposed as a result of incomplete understanding of the aetiopathogenesis of the disease and the absence of a single, more specific test to form the basis of diagnosis [3]. In spite of recently published classification criteria proposed by the AmericanEuropean Consensus group in 2002 (which also serve as diagnostic criteria) [4], the evaluation of salivary gland involvement in SS is still a matter of debate. In addition to standard tests for assessment of salivary gland involvement, namely the unstimulated salivary flow test, salivary gland scintigraphy and sialography, other methods have been studied (ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography) [5, 6]. Among them, ultrasonography (US) of the major salivary glands seems the most attractive as a non-invasive, inexpensive and non-irradiating investigation. However, only a few studies have evaluated the role of salivary gland US in diagnosing SS [714]. Comparison between them is rather difficult due to the different diagnostic criteria used. Since the publication of the new criteria set for SS only one study on the diagnostic value of salivary gland US has been reported [5].
The specific objectives of our cross-sectional study were to establish a practical method for evaluation of US changes of major salivary glands, combining previous findings and our own experience, and to determine the significance of US compared with formal classification criteria in the diagnosis of SS. The proposed semiquantitative scoring system summarizes all US changes of the major salivary glands that are typical of SS. US examination of salivary glands, as performed in our study, demonstrated very high specificity for SS and could provide important advances in SS diagnosis.
![]() |
Subjects and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Clinical assessment
All patients were asked to come to our department between 9 and 11 a.m., having fasted and not brushed their teeth, rinsed their mouth, or smoked tobacco for at least 1 h before the examination. Six questions to assess both ocular and oral involvement were given to each patient. Information on comorbidities and related treatment was collected at the same time. Besides the questionnaire, all patients were subjected to a Schirmer-I test, unstimulated salivary flow test, rose Bengal score determination, and serological tests. If necessary, salivary scintigraphy and histopathological investigation of the minor salivary glands were carried out until four of the six AmericanEuropean Consensus group classification criteria for SS [4] had been shown to be negative or until SS was diagnosed.
Serological tests
Antinuclear antibodies were assessed by indirect immunofluorescence on the Hep-2 cell line substrate (Immuno Concepts, USA). Anti-Ro/SS-A and anti-La/SS-B antibodies were tested by counter-immunoelectrophoresis [15].
Ultrasonography
US examination of the parotid and submandibular salivary glands was performed simultaneously with the SS diagnostic procedure. The observer who performed the US examination was unaware of the diagnosis. Greyscale images were obtained using an ATL HDI 3000 US scanner (Advanced Technologies Laboratories, Bothell, WA, USA) with a 512 MHz linear array transducer. Patients lay on their back and extended their necks on the side to be examined. Routine images of the salivary glands were obtained in longitudinal and transverse planes. The following US variables were investigated and the observed parameters were assessed semiquantitatively in both paired glands for each participant.
Parenchymal echogeneity was evaluated in comparison with the thyroid gland or when there was coincident thyroid gland disease by surrounding anatomical structures (muscular structures, subcutaneous fat). If the echogeneity was comparable to the thyroid, the grade was 0; if it was decreased, we graded it 1.
Homogeneity was graded from 0 to 3. Grading 0 was for a homogeneous gland, 1 for mild inhomogeneity, 2 for evident inhomogeneity, and 3 for a grossly inhomogeneous gland.
The presence of hypoechogenic areals was graded from 0 to 3 (grade 0, absent; grade 1, a few, scattered; grade 2, several; grade 3, numerous hypoechogenic areas).
Hyperechogenic reflections were graded from 0 to 3 in the parotid glands (grade 0, absent; grade 1, a few, scattered; grade 2, several; grade 3, numerous hyperechogenic reflections) and from 0 (absent) to 1 (present) in the submandibular glands.
Clearness of salivary gland borders was graded from 0 to 3 (grade 0, clear, regular defined borders; grade 1, partly defined borders; grade 2, ill-defined borders; grade 3, borders not visible).
Finally, the US score was calculated by summation of the grades for the five parameters described above for all four glands. US score ranged from 0 to 48.
Statistical analysis
For statistical comparisons, the t-test, the 2 test and univariate or multivariate logistic regression analysis were employed. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
On the other hand, the difference between the SS and non-SS group was statistically significant for objective features of dry eyes (P<0.01) and dry mouth (P = 0.01) and for the presence of anti-Ro and/or anti-La antibodies (P<0.0001) as well as in the number of positive minor salivary gland biopsy results (P<0.0001).
Ultrasonography
US visible structural changes were detected in 63/68 (92.6%) SS patients and in 99/150 (66.0%) subjects without confirmed SS (Fig. 1). The US score was calculated by summing the grades obtained for all four glands based on the assessment of the five observed parameters. Mean US score in SS patients was 24 (range from 0 to 48). Subjects without confirmed SS had the mean US score 3 (range from 0 to 21). US scores were then grouped into 13 classes. The percentage of subjects with and without SS with regard to the US score is shown in Fig. 2.
|
|
Comparison of the clinical characteristics of SS patients with US scores 17 with those from patients with US scores less than 17 showed that patients with US score
17 were of similar mean age (51.8 vs 53.2 yr), gender (38 vs 25 females), and had a similar average duration (4.4 vs 2.7 yr) and frequency of sicca symptoms. There was also no statistically significant difference in the mean unstimulated salivary flow rate between SS patients with US score
17 and SS patients with US score <17 (0.7 vs 0.9 ml, respectively). However, the compared groups differed significantly in the mean number of positive dry eye tests (P<0.01), in the frequency and severity (according to Schall's criteria) of positive salivary gland scintigraphy (P<0.01), and in the prevalence anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies (P<0.01). Anti-La autoantibodies were detected only in the 12 patients from the group with US score
17. Although there was no significant difference in regard to the number of positive biopsy findings, the difference in the mean focus score reached statistical significance between the compared groups (P = 0.03).
Finally, we compared the accuracy of different valid diagnostic tests in SS and salivary gland US. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed by computing the sensitivity and specificity of different tests and their accuracy was measured by the area under the ROC curve. The calculated area under the salivary gland US ROC [0.86 ± 0.031; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.790.92] was intermediate between the biopsy ROC curve (0.89 ± 0.030; 95% CI 0.830.95) and the area of the immunoserological ROC curve (0.80 ± 0.038; 95% CI 0.720.87). The area of the dry eye test ROC curve (0.68 ± 0.037; 95% CI 0.610.75) and the area of the salivary gland dysfunction test ROC curve (0.63 ± 0.039; 95% CI 0.550.70) were much lower. The shape of the ROC curve for xerophthalmia and xerostomia was nearly the same as the reference curve's shape. Our findings are represented in Fig. 3.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In the present study we aimed to establish a practical method for the evaluation of US changes of major salivary glands and to compare salivary gland US with currently accepted classification criteria for SS. Therefore we performed a US examination of the four major salivary glands in addition to diagnostic procedures in individuals whose history, clinical or laboratory findings suggested SS. Salivary glands in SS patients were significantly frequently hypoechogenic and inhomogeneous, and had unclear borders, hypoechogenic areas and hyperechogenic reflections significantly more commonly than glands of non-SS subjects. Comparison of US scores calculated from the constructed formula showed that the average US score in the SS patient group was 24 (range 048) and in the control group 3 (range 021). Considering the best sensitivity-to-specificity ratio, the cut-off point US score characteristic of SS was set at 17. Forty out of 68 subjects who fulfilled the last classifying criteria for SS [4] attained US score 17 or more. Using this cut-off point for the positive US test, the diagnostic sensitivity of salivary gland US in SS is 58.8%. The percentage is within the otherwise wide range of previous studies (from 33 to 90.9%) [6, 7]. Failure to detect changes in the remaining 28 SS patients may be due to the early stage of the disease or milder salivary gland involvement. Indeed, by comparing SS patients with US score <17 with patients with US score 17 we found a lower number of pathological ocular tests, milder salivary gland involvement assessed by salivary gland scintigraphy, a lower focus score on minor salivary gland biopsy and a lower prevalence of antinuclear, anti-Ro and anti-La autoantibodies in the former group of patients. In addition, autoantibodies against La antigen were detected only in patients sera from the group with US score
17. Similar results were reported by Makula [8]. In spite of an insignificant difference in average duration of sicca symptoms between our two compared groups of patients, mild US changes might in part be explained by shorter disease duration. Further follow-up of the patients is needed to verify this presumption.
The semiquantitative scoring system with the cut-off point 17 enables high specificity for SS diagnosis. Only two out of 150 subjects without confirmed SS attained a positive US score result. This gives high diagnostic specificity (98.7%).
By a close overview of data from two examined subjects without confirmed SS but with a US score indicating it, we found in both some elements of possible SS development. The first female participant had xerostomia, confirmed by pathological unstimulated salivary flow and scintigraphy and positive ocular tests. Autoantibodies against Ro and La antigens were not detected in her sera and changes found on the minor salivary gland biopsy did not fulfil the histological criteria (focus score 0.6). The second participant had, apart from subjective and objective dry eyes, a high focus score on the salivary gland biopsy (2.9), but was negative for other investigations.
ROC curves were employed to describe how well US examination and valid SS diagnostic tests can distinguish SS patients from controls without disease. A positive histopathological result was the best performer, followed by salivary gland US and immunoserological tests. The area under the ROC curve in all of these three investigations reached the range of good accuracy.
Finally, in clinical practice the predictive value is the most important measure of a test's performance. In the population we studied the positive predictive value for salivary gland US is 95.2% and the negative predictive value is 84.0%.
The subjective component of the salivary gland US assessment by only one observer was a major disadvantage of our study. To evaluate and minimize subjectivity of the US examination we had already performed another study with two blind investigators using the above-described semiquantitative scoring system, and compared their results. Good agreement was found between them (submitted for publication).
In conclusion, the salivary gland biopsy and immunoserological tests are the most noteworthy investigations in the present SS criteria [4]. We studied the value of US examination in diagnosing SS. In our opinion, the opportunity to perform US examination of major salivary glands at least represents another test of criterion no. 5: salivary gland involvement. On the other hand, the rather low sensitivity of salivary gland US does not make it appropriate for a screening test, since negative results do not exclude SS.
|
The authors have declared no conflicts of interest
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|