Objective. To investigate the degree of agreement between local rheumatologists/radiologists and central trained readers (external standard) on the presence/ absence of sacroiliitis on radiographs of the sacroiliac (SI) joints.Methods. Patients with inflammatory back pain (duration >3 months but <3 years) suggestive of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) were included in the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferérenciées Récentes (DESIR) cohort. Baseline radiographs of the SI joints were interpreted by 2 central readers (modified New York criteria); cases of disagreement were adjudicated by a third reader, yielding a positive or a negative result (central reading). The same radiographs were also interpreted by local radiologists/rheumatologists and were rated as "normal," "doubtful sacroiliitis," "obvious sacroiliitis," or "SI joint fusion" (local reading); positive findings were defined as "at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis," "bilateral obvious sacroiliitis," or "at least unilateral fusion." Agreement and misclassifications between central readers and between central reading versus local reading were calculated (kappa values).Results. Interreader agreement between the central readers was moderate ( ‫؍‬ 0.54); 108 of 688 radiographs (15.7%) were adjudicated. According to local reading ("at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis"), 183 of the 688 patients (26.6%) had sacroiliitis, whereas according to central reading, 145 of 688 patients (21.1%) had sacroiliitis. Agreement between local reading and central reading was also moderate ( ‫؍‬ 0.55); 76 of 183 patients (41.5%) with "at least unilateral obvious sacroiliitis" (positive by local reading) and 32 of 109 patients (29.4%) with "bilateral obvious sacroiliitis" or "at least unilateral fusion" (positive by local reading) were rated as "negative" by central reading, and 38 of 505 patients (7.5%) and 68 of 579 patients (11.7%), respectively, without sacroiliitis (negative by local reading) were interpreted as "positive" by central reading.

In patients with recent onset IBP, trained readers and local rheumatologists/radiologists agree well on recognising a pos-MRI. While disagreeing in 28% of the patients on positive imaging (MRI-SI and/or X-SI), classification of only 7.9% of the patients changed based on a different evaluation of images, showing the ASAS axSpA criteria's robustness.

DW EPI sequences are a feasible alternative to standard STIR T2-weighted sequences for detecting myocardium high signal areas in patients with recent MI.

Structural lesions on MRI can be used reliably either as an addition to or as a substitute for radiographs in the ASAS axSpA classification of patients in our cohort of patients with short symptom duration.

In two cohorts of patients with CBP with a maximum symptom duration of 3 years, a positive MRI-spine was rare in patients without sacroiliitis on MRI-SI and X-SI. Addition of MRI-spine as imaging criterion to the ASAS axSpA criteria had a low yield of newly classified patients and is therefore not recommended.

Background: Sarcopenia has emerged as an important parameter to predict outcomes and treatment toxicity. However, limited data are available to assess sarcopenia prevalence in metastatic breast cancer and to evaluate its management. Methods: The SCAN study was a cross-sectional multicenter French study that aimed to estimate sarcopenia prevalence in a real-life sample of metastatic cancer patients. Sarcopenia was identified by low muscle mass (estimated from the skeletal muscle index at the third lumbar, via computed tomography) and low muscle strength (defined by handgrip strength). Three populations were distinguished based on EWGSOP criteria: a sarcopenic group with low muscle mass AND strength, a pre-sarcopenic group with low muscle mass OR strength and a normal group with high muscle mass AND strength. Results: Among 766 included patients, 139 patients with breast cancer and median age of 61.2 years (29.9 e97.8 years) were evaluable; 29.5% were sarcopenic and 41.0% were pre-sarcopenic. Sarcopenic patients were older (P < 0.01), had a worse PS-score (P < 0.05), and a higher number of metastatic sites (P < 0.01), the majority being hepatic and bone. A moderate agreement between the oncologist's diagnosis and sarcopenia evaluation by muscle mass and strength was recognized (Cohen's kappa ¼ 0.45). No associations were found between sarcopenia and adverse event occurrence in the 12 patients for whom these were reported. Sarcopenic patients were underdiagnosed and nutritional care and physical activity were less proposed. Conclusion: It is necessary to evaluate sarcopenia due to its impact on patient prognosis, and its utility in guiding patient management in metastatic breast cancer.

Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

No abstract