Development of a radiographic scoring tool for ankylosing spondylitis only based on bone formationAddition of the thoracic spine improves sensitivity to change.код для вставкиСкачать
Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research) Vol. 61, No. 6, June 15, 2009, pp 764 –771 DOI 10.1002/art.24425 © 2009, American College of Rheumatology ORIGINAL ARTICLE Development of a Radiographic Scoring Tool for Ankylosing Spondylitis Only Based on Bone Formation: Addition of the Thoracic Spine Improves Sensitivity to Change X. BARALIAKOS,1 J. LISTING,2 M. RUDWALEIT,3 J. SIEPER,3 AND J. BRAUN1 Objective. The modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) quantiﬁes radiographic changes in the cervical spine (C-spine) and the lumbar spine (L-spine), but not in the thoracic spine (T-spine). Our objective was to study the contribution of the lower part of the T-spine to structural damage in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Radiographs of 80 AS patients obtained at baseline and after 2 years were scored by 2 readers using the mSASSS. In addition, changes in the lower T-spine (T10 –T12) were quantiﬁed. On this basis, a new scoring tool was developed: the Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (RASSS). The RASSS includes 2 changes: no scoring of erosions in order to conﬁne the scoring to new bone formation, and no scoring of squaring in the C-spine for anatomic and feasibility reasons. Results. The mean ⴞ SD change was 0.9 ⴞ 2.5 units using the mSASSS and 1.6 ⴞ 2.8 units using the RASSS (P < 0.001). Although the mSASSS identiﬁed new syndesmophytes in mean ⴞ SD 1.4 ⴞ 2.9 vertebral edges over 2 years, an additional 0.6 ⴞ 1.2 vertebral edges were seen in the lower T-spine. New syndesmophytes or ankylosis were found in 15 patients (21.4%; 95% conﬁdence interval [95% CI] 13.1–32.4%) in the C-spine/L-spine and in 6 patients (8.6%; 95% CI 3.8 –17.2%) in the T-spine alone. The reliability of the RASSS and the agreement between readers was excellent. Conclusion. The lower T-spine improves the sensitivity to change of scoring radiographic progression in AS. The tool developed in this study, the RASSS, showed better face and content validity than the mSASSS and was proven to be superior in the quantiﬁcation of new bone formation in AS. INTRODUCTION Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a frequent chronic inﬂammatory rheumatic disease that affects the axial skeleton at a young age (1), starting from the sacroiliac joints and later potentially spreading to the entire spine (2). New bone formation, syndesmophytes, and ankylosis of the vertebral column, which are pathognomonic for the structural changes occurring in AS, are used to assess the course of the disease. The gold standard for the assessment of chronic structural changes in AS are conventional radiographs (3,4), 1 X. Baraliakos, MD, J. Braun, MD: Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet and Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany; 2J. Listing, PhD: German Rheumatism Research Center, Berlin, Germany; 3M. Rudwaleit, MD, J. Sieper, MD: University Medicine Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany. Address correspondence to J. Braun, MD, Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Landgrafenstrasse 15, 44652 Herne, Germany. E-mail: J.Braun@Rheumazentrum-Ruhrgebiet.de. Submitted for publication September 17, 2008; accepted in revised form February 2, 2009. 764 although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are also useful to assess spinal inﬂammation (2,5). Using MRI, recent studies from Europe (6,7) and North America (8,9) have shown that the lower half of the thoracic spine (T-spine) is most frequently affected by active but also chronic lesions in patients with AS. It is of major interest in clinical studies and daily practice to know whether or not and how much radiographic progression related to AS can be detected in individual patients. These questions relate to the scoring systems used. Chronic spinal changes in AS are currently quantiﬁed by the modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) (10), an evaluated scoring system that is currently regarded as the best available on a data-driven basis (11). For the assessment of spinal radiographic progression in patients with AS, an observation period of 2 years is the shortest possible followup period based on the reliability and sensitivity to change of the mSASSS (12). The smallest detectable change (SDC) (13) is a measure of a statistically signiﬁcant radiographic change in individual patients beyond background noise in the case of a paired reading of the ﬁlms. The SDC has a better sensitiv- New Scoring System for AS Based on New Bone Formation 765 ity to change than the frequently used smallest detectable difference (SDD), which expresses the smallest difference between 2 independently obtained measures that can be interpreted as real (14). Because radiographic deterioration is scored with the ﬁlms compared side by side (paired reading) and not independently in rheumatologic studies (14), the SDD is less appropriate than the SDC for the deﬁnition of cutoff levels for changes between measurements. Nevertheless, we have recently shown that counting new syndesmophytes between time points is even more sensitive than the SDC or SDD for depicting radiographic deterioration in patients with AS (15). A potential disadvantage of the mSASSS is that the T-spine is not included, which is also true for other scoring systems (16). This is because of mainly technical reasons such as superimposition of the lungs in plain radiographs. Therefore, the reliability of scoring the T-spine has remained insufﬁcient to date (7). Thus, the most frequently affected spinal region has not become part of scoring systems developed up to now. Because of this, many syndesmophytes may not have been detected in recent studies (17–20). This may in part explain the relatively low sensitivity to change of the mSASSS (15). Recent data based on the mSASSS suggest that the very clinically efﬁcacious tumor necrosis factor blockers do not inhibit radiographic progression in patients with AS (18 – 20). Because the mean radiographic change has been reported to be less than 1 syndesmophyte (mSASSS scores between 0.4 and 1.5 units over 2 years) (17,21), the sensitivity to change of the mSASSS has been questioned. Furthermore, the face and construct validity of the mSASSS may be criticized because a score of 1 contains a mixture of osteodestructive (erosions) and osteoproliferative changes (squaring and sclerosis). Recent studies have indicated that erosions occur in less than 5% of all radiographic changes that develop over 2 years (15) in patients with AS. Furthermore, it was recently shown that the scoring of squaring in the cervical spine (C-spine) has problems on the basis of the anatomy of several cervical vertebrae that already naturally appear squared; this gives reason for false positive scores at this location (22). The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) ﬁlter (23) is an instrument used to evaluate and compare different outcome methods for use in rheumatology. According to the OMERACT ﬁlter, 3 aspects (discrimination/sensitivity to change, truth, and feasibility) should be investigated before a preference between any proposed methods can be made. The main objective of this study was to assess and quantify the additional information gained by inclusion of the lower T-spine in the assessment of radiographic progression observed in patients with AS. Furthermore, on that basis, we intended to possibly develop and evaluate a new scoring tool that also takes into account the other problems discussed above. spine (L-spine) at 2 time points: the ﬁrst clinical presentation (baseline) and 2 years later (2-year followup). All radiographs were performed according to the standard protocol used in our hospital. All of the patients included in this study fulﬁlled the modiﬁed New York criteria for AS (24). Radiographs were performed between January 1999 and December 2003 as part of a routine outpatient clinic procedure. None of the patients were treated with biologic agents. No other selection ﬁlters (level of disease activity, clinical or laboratory parameters) were used for selection. After blinding of the radiographs for the patient’s identity and the time point of performance, all images of the C-spine and L-spine were scored using the mSASSS, as recently described in detail (10,15), by 2 experienced readers (JB, XB) in a blinded paired design (14). In addition, all visible vertebral edges (VEs) of the lower part of the Tspine were scored and separately documented. Radiographic studies of AS always involve missing data and technical problems such as low quality of some images, overexposure or underexposure of ﬁlms, or suboptimal positioning of the patients, leading to incomplete capturing of spinal segments and vertebrae (11,15). In the present study, similar to recent proposals (11,15), we excluded images of patients with greater than 3 VEs missing. In cases with ⱕ3 VEs missing, the missing VEs were replaced by the mean scores of the vertebrae of the same spinal segment. The lower part of the T-spine and the L-spine were handled as one spinal segment. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical parameters. Assessments of clinical parameters (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index , Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index , and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index Patients were retrospectively selected based on the availability of radiographs of the lateral C-spine and lumbar Development of the Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. When it became clear that the additional scores obtained from the lower T-spine improved the sensitivity to change of the mSASSS, we decided to develop a new scoring tool in order to further improve the validity of the method. Therefore, we changed 2 further aspects: 1) in order to conﬁne the score to new bone formation, we excluded all scorings of erosions in all spinal segments (15), and 2) in order to avoid false positive scores, we excluded the scorings for squaring in the Cspine. The main reason for these modiﬁcations was a recent study showing that the scoring of squaring in the C-spine is not reliable, with the exception of C5 and C6 (22). Since squaring in the C-spine is an infrequent event (⬍1% of all scores) it is also scored in the T-spine, and because of the better feasibility of handling all similar spinal segments, we decided to omit the scoring of squaring for the entire C-spine. The new tool was named the Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (RASSS) to stress the fact that this is not a mixed score of osteodestructive and osteoproliferative lesions anymore, hereby distinguishing it from the mSASSS (Table 1). The ﬁnal step was then to score all of the images a second time with this new score in order to compare it with the current gold standard (the mSASSS) and prove its feasibility. 766 Baraliakos et al Table 1. Comparison of the 2 scoring systems that were evaluated in this study: the mSASSS and the RASSS* mSASSS View of image/sites scored Assessed spinal segments Cervical spine Thoracic spine Lumbar spine Range of scoring system Scoring deﬁnitions 0 1 2 3 RASSS Lateral/anterior vertebral edges Lateral/anterior vertebral edges Lower edge of C2 to upper edge of T1 Not included Lower edge of T12 to upper edge of S1 0–72 Lower edge of C2 to upper edge of T1 Lower edge of T10 to upper edge of T12 Lower edge of T12 to upper edge of S1 0–84 No change Erosion, squaring, sclerosis for both the cervical and lumbar spines No change No erosions scored, squaring only for the thoracic and lumbar spines, sclerosis scored for all sites available Syndesmophytes Bridging syndesmophyte/ankylosis Syndesmophytes Bridging syndesmophyte/ankylosis * mSASSS ⫽ modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Scoring System; RASSS ⫽ Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score; C ⫽ cervical; T ⫽ thoracic; S ⫽ sacral. [BASMI] , which include the tests for anteroposterior [Schober] and lateral spinal mobility and standard laboratory parameters [C-reactive protein level, erythrocyte sedimentation rate]) were available for all patients at both time points. The results of the anteroposterior and lateral thoracolumbar mobility assessments were correlated with the status and change scores of the radiographic evaluations. Statistical analysis. Wilcoxon’s paired rank sum test was used to compare the readings of the 2 scoring systems between different time points. Pearson’s correlation coefﬁcient was used to measure the association between the radiographic data and the single clinical and laboratory parameters. To measure the variability between single readings of the change scores of the 2 readers, the interrater variance was estimated by means of analysis of variance. The intraclass correlation coefﬁcients and their 95% conﬁdence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to compare the interrater variance with the variability between the total scores of the patients. Similar to a recent modiﬁcation (15), the SDC (13) was calculated by taking into account the number of readings available for the calculation. This means that the calculation was based on 95% tolerance limits, ensuring that ⬍5% of the changes greater than the SDC were due to the measurement error and/or the uncertainty in the readings. RESULTS Additional information on status scores at baseline after inclusion of the lower part of the T-spine. Altogether, 80 patients who had appropriate available radiographs were included in the study. The baseline demographic, clinical, and radiographic data of the patients at baseline and at followup are shown in Table 2. The lower part of the T-spine was clearly visible and could be assessed in 70 patients (88%), whereas the remaining 10 patients (12%) had to be excluded from the analysis because less than 3 VEs were visible on their ﬁlms. The most caudal VE that could possibly be detected was the lower edge of the ninth thoracic vertebra (T9). ThereTable 2. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic descriptions of the 70 patients included in the assessment of the radiographic progression in this study* Assessment Demographic characteristics Age, years Men, no. (%) HLA–B27 positive, no. (%) Symptoms duration, years Clinical parameters at baseline BASDAI BASFI BASMI CRP level, mg/dl Radiographic parameters mSASSS Baseline Followup RASSS Baseline Followup Score in the cervical spine Baseline Followup Score in the lumbar spine Baseline Followup Score in the thoracic spine Baseline Followup Value 37.3 ⫾ 10.4 46 (65.7) 61 (87) 10.8 ⫾ 8.6 4.6 ⫾ 2.2 3.9 ⫾ 2.6 2.8 ⫾ 2.0 10.1 ⫾ 14.9 8.1 ⫾ 14.6 9.0 ⫾ 12.9 9.8 ⫾ 16.0 11.4 ⫾ 14.8 4.6 ⫾ 9.1 5.1 ⫾ 11.8 3.5 ⫾ 7.6 3.9 ⫾ 9.9 1.7 ⫾ 3.0 2.3 ⫾ 3.2 * Values are the mean ⫾ SD unless otherwise indicated. BASDAI ⫽ Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; BASFI ⫽ Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index; BASMI ⫽ Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index; CRP ⫽ C-reactive protein; mSASSS ⫽ modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score; RASSS ⫽ Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. Status instruments Variance between patients Interrater variance ICC (95% CI) Agreement between readers, no. (%) (n ⫽ 70) Disagreement between readers, no. (%) (n ⫽ 70) ⱕ2 score units ⬎2 score units * Data are shown as the variance between patients and interrater variance with the corresponding intraclass correlation coefﬁcients (ICCs), including agreement and disagreement between readers. mSASSS ⫽ modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score; RASSS ⫽ Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score; 95% CI ⫽ 95% conﬁdence interval. † ICC (95% CI). 13 (18.6) 3 (4.3) 12 (17.1) 2 (2.9) 23 (32.9) 8 (11.4) 20 (28.6) 7 (10.0) 12 (17.1) 4 (5.7) 13 (18.6) 7 (10.0) 0.31 (0.23–0.45)† 0.950 (0.904–0.974) 56 (80) 1.47 0.995 (0.990–0.997) 39 (55.7) 0.99 0.996 (0.992–0.998) 43 (61.4) 0.80 0.996 (0.993–0.998) 54 (77.1) 255.21 235.98 212.35 Baseline Followup 1.01 0.996 (0.992–0.998) 50 (71.4) 5.93 298.56 Followup mSASSS Change scores RASSS Baseline Additional information on change scores of radiographic progression in the 2-year followup after inclusion of the lower part of the T-spine. The radiographic progression after 2 years showed a mean ⫾ SD change of 0.9 ⫾ 2.5 units in the mSASSS and 1.6 ⫾ 2.8 units in the RASSS (P ⬍ 0.001). When assessing each spinal region separately, the mean ⫾ SD RASSS change was 0.5 ⫾ 2.9 units in the C-spine alone, 0.4 ⫾ 2.2 units in the L-spine alone, and 0.6 ⫾ 3.3 units in the lower part of the T-spine alone within the 2-year followup period. At followup, new syndesmophytes were depicted in mean ⫾ SD 1.4 ⫾ 2.9 VEs per patient when using the mSASSS, and in 0.6 ⫾ 1.2 VEs per patient in the additionally analyzed lower edge of T10 to the upper edge of T12 (Figure 2). In the analysis based on single VEs, the occurrence of AS-speciﬁc progression such as development of new syn- mSASSS Reliability of the readings for both scoring systems. The interrater variances of the status and the change scores for both the mSASSS and the RASSS were very low, indicating excellent reliabilities for both scoring systems (Table 2). The low interrater variances also corresponded to very low SDC values of 1.1 for the mSASSS and 1.3 for the RSASSS, suggesting that a progression of ⱖ2 units represents a relevant radiographic change. The detailed comparison of the 2 scoring systems, including data on the agreement/disagreement between readers, is shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. Table 3. Detailed data on the reliability of the readings for both scoring systems* Differences in the outcome of radiographic change after inclusion and exclusion of erosions and vertebral squaring in the C-spine of patients with AS. Overall, 827 cervical VEs were available for analysis at baseline. Of those, a score of 1 was found in 16 VEs. In those VEs, squaring was identiﬁed in only 3 cases (0.4%). Furthermore, only 1% of the VEs showed deterioration from no damage to erosions after 2 years. Inclusion or exclusion of scorings for erosions and of scores for squaring in the C-spine did not change the overall score for radiographic deterioration: the mean ⫾ SD RASSS change was 1.7 ⫾ 3.1 units with the scorings and 1.6 ⫾ 2.8 units without the scorings (P ⬎ 0.05). RASSS fore, the maximal possible information on radiographic progression that could have possibly been obtained was on 6 additional VEs (lower edge of T9 through upper edge of T12). However, the lower edge of T9 was assessable in only 9 patients (12.9%), and the upper edge of T10 was assessable in only 18 (25.7%) of 70 patients, leading to ⬎3 missing sites in the T-spine in the majority of the patients. In contrast, all other VEs from the lower edge of T10 to the upper edge of T12 were visible in ⬎50% of the patients. Their inclusion signiﬁcantly added information to the total amount of radiographic damage detected with mean ⫾ SD 3.1 ⫾ 0.4 VEs per patient, thus including all patients in the evaluation. The inclusion of the additional VEs in the analysis increased the range of the scoring system from 0 –72 units in the mSASSS to 0 – 84 units in the RASSS (Table 1). 0.41 (0.31–0.59)† 0.949 (0.903–0.974) 54 (77.1) 767 7.70 New Scoring System for AS Based on New Bone Formation 768 Baraliakos et al Correlation of radiographic scores and clinical assessments. The baseline values of the mSASSS and RASSS correlated signiﬁcantly (r ⫽ 0.984, P ⬍ 0.001). Furthermore, there was a statistically signiﬁcant correlation between the RASSS and the BASMI (r ⫽ 0.46), but also between the mSASSS and the BASMI (r ⫽ 0.49) at baseline (P ⬍ 0.001 for both). Regarding change scores, there was a statistically signiﬁcant correlation between the mSASSS change and the RASSS change (r ⫽ 0.87, P ⬍ 0.001). However, there was no statistically signiﬁcant correlation between radiographic scores and clinical or laboratory parameters (data not shown). DISCUSSION Figure 1. Differences in change scores between the modiﬁed Stokes Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) and the Radiographic Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (RASSS) based on the individual scores of the 2 readers. The x-axis shows the difference between the change scores over 2 years (RASSS change scores minus mSASSS change scores). The y-axis shows the number of patients corresponding to those differences. On the left side of the dotted line, the difference in change scores indicates superiority of the mSASSS to detect radiographic deterioration over time, whereas on the right side of the dotted line, the difference in change scores shows superiority of the RASSS to detect radiographic deterioration over time. The RASSS has a higher sensitivity to change because the majority of the differences are on the right side of the dotted line. To our knowledge, this is the ﬁrst study to examine and quantify the radiographic changes in the lower part of the T-spine using conventional radiographs of patients with AS. On this basis, and after taking into account recent publications on the subject, we developed a new tool for scoring radiographic progression in patients with AS that is purely based on new bone formation: the RASSS. As shown in the present study, the lower part of the T-spine is visible in the vast majority of spinal radiographs obtained in daily routine in Germany. This is probably due to historical recommendations: some decades ago, Dihlmann taught about speciﬁcally assessing the region of the lower T-spine and the upper L-spine in patients with AS, which is still recommended by the German Society of desmophytes or progression from syndesmophytes to ankylosis occurred mean ⫾ SD 0.04 ⫾ 0.3 times per VE in the C-spine and L-spine and 0.02 ⫾ 0.22 times per VE in the lower T-spine (P ⬎ 0.05 between segments). Importantly, on the patient level, development of new syndesmophytes/ankylosis was seen in 15 (21.4%) of 70 patients (95% CI 13.1–32.4%) in the C-spine and L-spine and in 6 (8.6%) of 70 patients (95% CI 3.8 –17.2%) in the T-spine alone; 4 patients showed such changes in all 3 spinal segments (C-spine, L-spine, and T-spine). Feasibility of evaluation of changes in the lower part of the T-spine. The mean ⫾ SD time for the scoring of the images using the mSASSS was 91.6 ⫾ 60.2 seconds per patient for the C-spine and L-spine, and 18.8 ⫾ 10.1 seconds for the lower part of the T-spine. Therefore, the mean ⫾ SD time of scoring the ﬁlms of a single patient was usually ⬍2 minutes, with a minor increase in time for the lower T-spine. Radiation exposure. The radiation exposure (dosis/surface product) calculated for the patients remained below the limit (800 cGy/cm2) prescribed by the guidelines of the responsible authorities (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) (28), with a value of 616.94 cGy/cm2. Figure 2. Example of the development of new syndesmophytes in the lower part of the thoracic spine and in the lumbar spine 2 years after baseline. Th ⫽ vertebral body in the thoracic spine; L ⫽ vertebral body in the lumbar spine. New Scoring System for AS Based on New Bone Formation Rheumatology (29). Since we cannot be sure that this is also the case in other radiologic departments in the world where the radiograph is often centered lower with tighter collimation so that only T12 is included on the image, our data suggest that it may be advisable to change the acquisition technique in order to be able to apply the new scoring system. The required technique is described in the Patients and Methods section. Generally, altering the beam and centering and opening the collimation requires only a minor change in practice, resulting in a slightly inferior projection of the lower L-spine without limiting AS-related changes for scoring. In general, to be able to score with the RASSS, the segments T10 (lower edge) to T12 (upper edge), in addition to the C-spine and the L-spine, need to be assessed on the radiographs. Because spinal segments located more cranially are not clearly visible (15), vertebrae such as the lower edge of T9 and the upper edge of T10, although visible in some images, ﬁnally had to be excluded from the score. Whether it will be technically possible and statistically necessary to include more vertebrae of the T-spine will be subject to future studies. In any case, at the end of the ﬁrst part of this study, it seemed obvious that the lower part of the T-spine should be included in the assessment and the scoring of the lateral lower spine. On this basis, we believed that it was time to develop a new scoring system and not to modify the mSASSS a second time (10,30). Therefore, we proposed to score radiographic progression in AS with the new scoring tool, the RASSS, which, as shown in this study, performs superior to the mSASSS. The general principle of scoring a mixture of osteoproliferative changes such as squaring, sclerosis, syndesmophytes formation, and ankylosis with osteodestructive changes such as erosions has no convincing face and content validity, since a development from an erosion to a syndesmophyte is a rare event, if it occurs at all. Theoretically, 2 scoring systems, one for osteoproliferative changes and one for osteodestruction, would be ideal. However, since erosions tend to occur infrequently, in less than 5% of all radiographic changes as shown only recently (15), it appeared straightforward to omit that position. According to the data from a recent study in Korea (22), several vertebrae of the C-spine already appear squared by the nature of their anatomy. Since this was in accordance with our own subjective experience, we ﬁrst decided to propose to only score the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae in the RASSS without any further analysis of our data on this subject. Because we then calculated that squaring in the C-spine occurred in less than 1% of the VEs assessed, we ﬁnally decided to exclude all scorings of squaring in the C-spine from the ﬁnal analysis. We also believe that this improves the feasibility and simplicity of the scoring system. The status and change scores of the RASSS have been compared with the original mSASSS not only on a numerative basis of score units, but also based on the main aspects of the OMERACT ﬁlter (truth, discrimination/sensitivity to change, and feasibility) (23). With respect to the aspect of truth, a major argument is that our results are very much in line with recent reports 769 on the relative frequency of inﬂammatory and structural spinal lesions in patients with AS, as depicted by MRI, showing that spinal lesions mostly occur in the lower part of the T-spine (6 –9). In the present study, when only the C-spine and the L-spine were scored, approximately 20% of the patients showed deﬁnite AS-related changes such as syndesmophytes and ankylosis, again similar to previous reports (15). This proportion increased to 30% of the patients when the lower part of the T-spine was added. Similar results were obtained when the analysis was performed on the basis of spinal segments: the mean change scores were higher in the lower part of the T-spine as compared with the changes in the rest of the spine. Similar to the mSASSS, the RASSS is also mainly based on the most disease-speciﬁc changes in AS (15): syndesmophytes. Therefore, a change of ⱖ2 units in the RASSS represents a signiﬁcant radiographic change. Importantly, this does not necessarily indicate the presence of new syndesmophytes, since 2 scores of a single RASSS unit would also add up to a score of 2. This score represents a relevant cutoff for the assessment of radiographic progression in AS patients after 2 years. On this basis, a deterioration of structural damage occurred in more than 80% of the patients in our cohort. The truth aspect was also assessed by correlating the change scores of the scoring systems to clinical parameters. Similar to most previous studies, no signiﬁcant correlations were found (11,15,18,20), although another study suggested a closer link between radiographic damage and spinal mobility as measured by the BASMI (31). One possible reason for a partial disconnect is that physical function in AS is also independently determined by disease activity and not only radiographic damage of the spine (32). Regarding the OMERACT ﬁlter aspect discrimination, the mean radiographic progression was signiﬁcantly increased when using the RASSS as compared with the mSASSS. This might be related to the signiﬁcantly higher ability of the RASSS to depict patients with development of new syndesmophytes, the most valid way to characterize cohorts of AS patients in terms of structural damage (15). Finally, for the feasibility aspect, the addition of the lower part of the T-spine only marginally added time to the act of scoring in the RASSS as compared with the mSASSS. Overall, the additional seconds needed to score the lower part of the T-spine do not seem to matter much with respect to the gain in sensitivity to change. Furthermore, no additional time was needed to perform the radiographs of the lower part of the T-spine, since no extra radiographs were needed. The fact that in other departments, performance of routine radiographs of the L-spine does not include the lower part of the T-spine may limit the ability to use the RASSS in those patients. However, in a setting of clinical studies, the inclusion of this part of the spine may be arranged as a part of the imaging protocol. It is worth mentioning that overall, the comparison between images with and without inclusion of the T-spine may lead to a slightly inferior projection of the lower L-spine. However, this will not have a major inﬂuence on the results, and we think that 770 Baraliakos et al this small sacriﬁce is worth it because of the gain in validity and sensitivity to change by using the RASSS. Subsequently, a further limitation not only of the present study but for all assessments of radiographic deterioration in the spine of AS patients is the fact that we are for technical reasons still not able to completely assess the lower half of the T-spine, since we are aware that the regions of T6 –T9 are also frequently affected (6). Therefore, we do not think that this is the end of all efforts to improve the assessment of structural damage in AS, but we do believe that this step performed here with this data is the best we can currently do with the available technique. In conclusion, the inclusion of the lower part of the T-spine signiﬁcantly increases the sensitivity to change when scoring radiographic damage in AS because more syndesmophytes are potentially scored. The new tool, the RASSS, has better face and content validity than the mSASSS. Overall, it proved to be clearly superior for the assessment of structural damage in patients with AS. The RASSS should be further evaluated in clinical trials and cohort studies of patients with AS. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Dr. Braun had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study design. Baraliakos, Braun. Acquisition of data. Baraliakos, Rudwaleit, Sieper. Analysis and interpretation of data. Baraliakos, Listing, Braun. Manuscript preparation. Baraliakos, Listing, Sieper, Braun. Statistical analysis. Baraliakos, Listing, Braun. REFERENCES 1. Braun J, Bollow M, Remlinger G, Eggens U, Rudwaleit M, Distler A, et al. Prevalence of spondylarthropathies in HLA– B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:58 – 67. 2. Braun J, Sieper J. The sacroiliac joint in the spondylarthropathies. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1996;8:275– 87. 3. Braun J, van der Heijde D. Imaging and scoring in ankylosing spondylitis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2002;16:573– 604. 4. Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Landewe R, Weijers R, Wanders A, Houben H, van der Linden S, et al. Combining information obtained from magnetic resonance imaging and conventional radiographs to detect sacroiliitis in patients with recent onset inﬂammatory back pain. Ann Rheum Dis 2006;65:804 – 8. 5. Braun J, Bollow M, Sieper J. Radiologic diagnosis and pathology of the spondyloarthropathies. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 1998;24:697–735. 6. Baraliakos X, Landewe R, Hermann KG, Listing J, Golder W, Brandt J, et al. Inﬂammation in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic description of the extent and frequency of acute spinal changes using magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:730 – 4. 7. Braun J, Baraliakos X, Golder W, Hermann KG, Listing J, Brandt J, et al. Analysing chronic spinal changes in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic comparison of conventional x rays with magnetic resonance imaging using established and new scoring systems. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1046 –55. 8. Maksymowych WP, Dhillon SS, Park R, Salonen D, Inman RD, Lambert RG. Validation of the Spondylarthritis Research Consortium of Canada magnetic resonance imaging spinal inﬂammation index: is it necessary to score the entire spine? Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:501–7. 9. Maksymowych WP, Inman RD, Salonen D, Dhillon SS, Krishnananthan R, Stone M, et al. Spondylarthritis Research Con- 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. sortium of Canada magnetic resonance imaging index for assessment of spinal inﬂammation in ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:502–9. Creemers MC, Franssen MJ, van ’t Hof MA, Gribnau FW, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL. Assessment of outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: an extended radiographic scoring system. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:127–9. Wanders AJ, Landewe RB, Spoorenberg A, Dougados M, van der Linden S, Mielants H, et al. What is the most appropriate radiologic scoring method for ankylosing spondylitis? A comparison of the available methods based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials ﬁlter. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:2622–32. Spoorenberg A, de Vlam K, van der Linden S, Dougados M, Mielants H, van de Tempel H, et al. Radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability and change over 1 and 2 years. J Rheumatol 2004;31:125–32. Bruynesteyn K, Boers M, Kostense P, van der Linden S, van der Heijde D. Deciding on progression of joint damage in paired ﬁlms of individual patients: smallest detectable difference or change. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:179 – 82. Wanders A, Landewe R, Spoorenberg A, de Vlam K, Mielants H, Dougados M, et al. Scoring of radiographic progression in randomised clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis: a preference for paired reading order. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63: 1601– 4. Baraliakos X, Listing J, Rudwaleit M, Haibel H, Brandt J, Sieper J, et al. Progression of radiographic damage in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: deﬁning the central role of syndesmophytes. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:910 –5. MacKay K, Mack C, Brophy S, Calin A. The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index (BASRI): a new, validated approach to disease assessment. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:2263– 70. Baraliakos X, Listing J, Rudwaleit M, Brandt J, Sieper J, Braun J. Radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after 2 years of treatment with the tumour necrosis factor ␣ antibody inﬂiximab. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64: 1462– 6. Baraliakos X, Listing J, Brandt J, Haibel H, Rudwaleit M, Sieper J, et al. Radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after 4 yrs of treatment with the antiTNF-␣ antibody inﬂiximab. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46: 1450 –3. Van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Baraliakos X, Houben H, van Tubergen A, Williamson P, et al. Radiographic ﬁndings following two years of inﬂiximab therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:3063–70. Van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Einstein S, Ory P, Vosse D, Ni L, et al. Radiographic progression of ankylosing spondylitis after up to two years of treatment with etanercept. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:1324 –31. Wanders A, van der Heijde D, Landewe R, Behier JM, Calin A, Olivieri I, et al. Inhibition of radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by continuous use of NSAIDs [abstract]. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48 Suppl:S233. Kim TJ, Kim HS, Joo KB, Kim S, Kim TH. Do we really need to evaluate entire cervical spines for squaring score in modiﬁed stoke ankylosing spondylitis spinal score? J Rheumatol 2008;35:477–9. Boers M, Brooks P, Strand CV, Tugwell P. The OMERACT ﬁlter for outcome measures in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1998;25:198 –9. Van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis: a proposal for modiﬁcation of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 1984; 27:361– 8. Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A. A new approach to deﬁning disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286 –91. Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O’Hea J, Mal- New Scoring System for AS Based on New Bone Formation lorie P, et al. A new approach to deﬁning functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21: 2281–5. 27. Jenkinson TR, Mallorie PA, Whitelock HC, Kennedy LG, Garrett SL, Calin A. Deﬁning spinal mobility in ankylosing spondylitis (AS): the Bath AS Metrology Index. J Rheumatol 1994; 21:1694 – 8. 28. Braun J, Rudwaleit M, Hermann KG, Rau R. Imaging in ankylosing spondylitis. Z Rheumatol 2007;66:167–78. In German. 29. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Rheumatology. Qualitatssicherung in der rheumatology. New York, Springer; 2000. p. 10 –5. 771 30. Creamer P. Intra-articular corticosteroid treatment in osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1999;11:417–21. 31. Salafﬁ F, Carotti M, Garofalo G, Giuseppetti GM, Grassi W. Radiological scoring methods for ankylosing spondylitis: a comparison between the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index and the modiﬁed Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2007;25:67–74. 32. Landewe R, Dougados M, Mielants H, van der Tempel H, van der Heijde D. Physical function in ankylosing spondylitis is independently determined by both disease activity and radiographic damage of the spine. Ann Rheum Dis 2008. E-pub ahead of print.