You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
What is the agreement between pathological features of parotid gland and labial salivary gland biopsies?
  1. Guillermo Carvajal Alegria1,2,
  2. Sebastian Costa2,3,
  3. Sandrine Jousse-Joulin1,2,
  4. Pascale Marcorelles3,
  5. Jacques-Olivier Pers2,
  6. Alain Saraux1,2,
  7. Valérie Devauchelle-Pensec1,2,
  8. Divi Cornec1,2
  1. 1 Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
  2. 2 INSERM UMR1227, Lymphocytes B et Autoimmunité, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France
  3. 3 Laboratoire d’Anatomie Pathologique et Cytologie, Hôpital Morvan, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Divi Cornec, Service de Rhumatologie, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, 29200 Brest, France; divi.cornec{at}chu-brest.fr

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212289

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We read with a great interest the recent contribution by Mossel et al,1 which brings new important data on the diagnostic value of major salivary ultrasonography (SGUS) for primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS), as reported in previous studies2–10 and stresses the need to evaluate the inclusion of SGUS into future classification criteria for the disease.

    In their cohort of 103 consecutive patients clinically suspected for pSS, Mossel et al reported a good agreement between SGUS and labial and parotid salivary gland biopsy. Agreement was reported to be marginally higher for parotid gland biopsy (absolute agreement of 83%) than for minor labial salivary gland biopsy (absolute agreement 79%). However, the …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All the authors participated in the drafting of the letter and validated the final version.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles