Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology.
Department of Pathology and Medical Biology.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 May 30;61(6):2472-2482. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab781.
The involvement of salivary glands in primary SS (pSS) can be assessed in different ways: histopathology, salivary flow and ultrasonography. To understand the relative value of these different approaches, it is crucial to understand the relationship between them. As we routinely perform these three modalities in the parotid gland for disease evaluation, our aim was to investigate the construct validity between these modalities in one and the same gland.
Consecutive sicca patients underwent a multidisciplinary diagnostic workup including parotid gland biopsy, collection of parotid gland-specific saliva and parotid gland ultrasonography. Patients who were classified as pSS according to the ACR-EULAR criteria were included. Construct validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficients.
The 41 included pSS patients completed a full workup within a mean time interval of 2.6 months. Correlations between histopathological features and stimulated parotid salivary flow were fair (ρ = -0.123 for focus score and ρ = -0.259 for percentage of CD45+ infiltrate). Likewise, poor correlations were observed between stimulated parotid salivary flow and parotid ultrasonography (ρ = -0.196). Moderate to good associations were found between the histopathological items focus score and the percentage of CD45+ infiltrate, with parotid US scores (total US score: ρ = 0.510 and ρ = 0.560; highest for homogeneity: ρ = 0.574 and ρ = 0.633).
Although pSS-associated ultrasonographic findings did correlate with histopathological features, the three modalities that evaluate salivary gland involvement assess different (or at best partly related) constructs. Therefore histopathology, salivary flow and ultrasonography are complementary measurements and cannot directly replace each other in the workup of pSS.
原发性干燥综合征(pSS)患者的唾液腺受累可通过多种方式评估:组织病理学、唾液流率和超声检查。为了了解这些不同方法的相对价值,了解它们之间的关系至关重要。由于我们在评估疾病时常规在腮腺中进行这三种方式,我们的目的是在同一腺体中研究这三种方式之间的结构有效性。
连续的干燥综合征患者接受了多学科诊断评估,包括腮腺活检、腮腺特异性唾液采集和腮腺超声检查。根据 ACR-EULAR 标准分类为 pSS 的患者被纳入研究。使用 Spearman 相关系数评估结构有效性。
41 例 pSS 患者在平均 2.6 个月的时间间隔内完成了全面的评估。组织病理学特征与刺激后腮腺唾液流率之间的相关性为中等(焦点评分的相关系数为 ρ=-0.123,CD45+浸润百分比的相关系数为 ρ=-0.259)。同样,刺激后腮腺唾液流率与腮腺超声检查之间的相关性也较差(相关系数为 ρ=-0.196)。组织病理学项目焦点评分与 CD45+浸润百分比之间存在中度至高度相关性,与腮腺超声评分(总超声评分:相关系数为 ρ=0.510 和 ρ=0.560;与均匀性相关性最高:相关系数为 ρ=0.574 和 ρ=0.633)。
尽管与 pSS 相关的超声检查结果与组织病理学特征相关,但评估唾液腺受累的三种方式评估的是不同的(或最好是部分相关的)结构。因此,组织病理学、唾液流率和超声检查是互补的测量方法,在 pSS 的评估中不能直接相互替代。