Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

With Minor Salivary Gland Biopsy in Sjögren Syndrome, Is a Negative Result Possible?

DIANA M. MONSALVE and JUAN-MANUEL ANAYA
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2020, 47 (3) 310-312; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.190743
DIANA M. MONSALVE
Center for Autoimmune Diseases Research (CREA), School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JUAN-MANUEL ANAYA
CREA, and Clínica de Occidente, Bogotá, Colombia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: juan.anaya@urosario.edu.co
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

In this issue of The Journal, Sharma, et al1 report on the differences among 3 groups of patients with Sjögren syndrome (SS). The first had a focus score (FS) of < 1 in the minor salivary gland (MSG) biopsy, another had an FS ≥ 1, and the other had an FS of zero. Patients without focal lymphocytic infiltration (i.e., FS = 0) exhibited a low frequency of anti-La antibodies, corneal compromise, and hypergammaglobulinemia, and had no elevated expression of interferon-regulated genes, but did have systemic disease. However, all these patients showed positive anti-Ro antibodies. These results indicate that anti-Ro antibodies may be a key factor influencing the development of the disease, and that the MSG biopsy may be negative in patients with SS.

SS is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by a progressive lymphocytic and plasma cell infiltration that mainly affects the salivary and lachrymal glands and leads to xerostomia and keratoconjunctivitis sicca (sicca symptoms). The diagnosis of SS is based on the combination of symptoms (sicca symptoms) and the presence of autoimmune characteristics: activation of B cells (i.e., presence of auto-antibodies) and/or T cells (i.e., positive MSG biopsy)2. The classification of the disease is currently based on the American-European consensus group classification criteria [American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)], which include serological tests, clinical findings, and histological examination3. The presence of autoantibodies or a positive MSG biopsy is mandatory3.

MSG biopsy plays an essential role in the diagnosis, stratification, and prognosis of SS as well as in the differential diagnosis of the disease (i.e., sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, etc.)4,5. In our view, for diagnostic purposes the MSG biopsy is preferred to parotid and lacrimal gland biopsies because it is less invasive and safer while offering similar pathological information. Histologically, MSG can have several changes throughout the disease6,7. In the early stages, there are intralobular and interlobular chronic inflammatory infiltrates with or without loss of glandular architecture. Thereafter, there is the formation of small focal mononuclear (mostly lymphocytes) infiltrates around epithelial ducts. Finally, infiltrating cells spread into the parenchyma, causing the formation of a large diffuse infiltrate with glandular destruction, loss of acini architecture, and alteration of the physiological functions6,7. The magnitude of the infiltrate (i.e., FS) increases with the duration of disease but does not correlate with salivary secretion8. The aggregates of mononuclear cells are formed preferentially in periductal areas. In contrast to the focal sialadenitis of the MSG, lymphocytes infiltrating the major salivary glands often form secondary lymph follicles with, in some instances, clonally expanded B cells, thus rendering them prone to transformation into lymphoma9. The current prevalence of lymphoma in SS is < 5% and is the lowest in Latin Americans2.

The existence of focal lymphocytic sialadenitis (FLS), defined as one or more dense aggregates consisting of at least 50 mononuclear cells per 4 mm2 (1 focus) located in perivascular and periductal areas, is one of the 5 classification criteria for SS established by the ACR/EULAR, with a sensitivity and specificity > 80%3. To correctly evaluate the presence of FLS, the following requirements must be met: examination of 3–5 glands or a minimum glandular surface area of 8 mm2, and a foci count adjacent to normal-appearing acini in lobules preferably without duct dilation or interstitial fibrosis10,11.

In 1974 Greenspan, et al12 introduced the concept of FS as an expansion of the Chisholm and Mason classification. According to their definition, the FS is calculated by measuring the entire surface area of lobules in a tissue section through a microscope with a calibrated eyepiece graticule. Afterward, it is necessary to quantify the number of periductal or perivascular aggregates (foci) adjacent to normal acini. The total number of aggregates is divided by the total area of salivary gland lobules to obtain the number of foci per mm2. Finally, the number obtained is multiplied by 4 to get the FS. An MSG biopsy with FS ≥ 1 is considered positive and correlates with glandular damage, diagnosis, and severity of SS11.

Difficulties in MSG biopsy interpretation may arise, because in addition to the FLS, other conditions may also be observed, such as nonspecific chronic sialadenitis (NSCS; i.e., focal or scattered infiltrate of lymphocytes with mild to moderate structure alteration in lobules), chronic sclerosing sialadenitis (i.e., advanced stage of NSCS), granulomatous inflammation, germinal center (GC) formation, acinar atrophy, interstitial fibrosis, and ductal dilation. These findings are relatively common and increase with age13. If FLS is identified despite these alterations, all foci should be counted to calculate the FS, including foci adjacent to abnormal acini. All the alterations should be stated in the pathology report14.

Pathophysiology of glandular damage is mainly attributed to a cytotoxic response. The majority of the infiltrating cells are T cells (> 75%) and within these, CD4+ T cells are the most prevalent15. The composition of the inflammatory cell infiltration varies with the severity of the lesion13. Christodoulou, et al7 confirmed through immunohistochemistry (IHC) that mononuclear infiltrates mainly consist of T and B cells, whereas macrophages and dendritic cells (DC) were observed in heavy infiltrates linked to advanced lesions organized in GC. Moreover, they showed that CD4+ T cells, Treg, B cells, macrophages, and interdigitating DC percentages were significantly different depending on whether the autoimmune lesions were mild, intermediate, or severe. However, CD8+ T cells, follicular DC, and natural killer cells did not have a significant percentage variation based on lesion severity. T cells predominate in mild lesions, whereas B cells predominate in advanced ones7. Further, other factors beyond inflammatory infiltration have been implicated in the development of SS. Several studies have demonstrated that homeostasis alteration in epithelial cells (target of the disease) plays an important role in the beginning and progression of SS. Morphological and molecular changes in acinar and ductal cells (principally acinar cell polarity modification by tight junctions, hemidesmosomes, alterations of polarity complexes, and changes in mucin quality and quantity) alter the secretory machinery16. These alterations are found mainly in MSG biopsies with little inflammation occurring regardless of the amount of or proximity to inflammatory foci6.

Although the Sjögren’s International Clinical Collaborative Alliance released a protocol for sample preparation and determination of FS in patients suspected of having SS11, confirming oral compromise of SS remains difficult because of the poor reproducibility of the MSG biopsy14,17. Fisher, et al5 highlighted the need to standardize histopathological interpretation from the acquisition and processing of the MSG to the interpretation of the local aggregates. Owing to the dispersed character of foci infiltration, reading an inadequate glandular area may cause an over- or underestimation of the FS. To improve the reliability of the reading, it is necessary to evaluate multiple tissue levels, particularly in MSG biopsies with low FS and few ducts. After the standardization of MSG histopathology done by Fisher, et al10, it has been recommended that at least 4 glands be examined, although the minimum of 8 mm2 surface area suggested may be obtained with 2 to 3 glands. However, because some glands may be damaged during the biopsy process or found to be atrophied, the more glands obtained, the better. Morbini, et al18 demonstrated that multilevel examination of the MSG biopsy improves its diagnostic performance. The authors suggested reading a minimum of 3 different section levels, assuming that a 200-μm length is sufficient to detect independent foci while decreasing the probability of losing the smaller ones. Additionally, another study showed that the difference between deeper intervals was enough to change the MSG biopsy result from positive to negative or vice versa19. Up to this point, there is no consensus regarding the optimal intervals to be used.

The MSG biopsy is a major variable in the diagnosis of SS, as long as it is done correctly (Figure 1). Although the majority of the histological studies for the diagnosis of SS are based on H&E staining, IHC procedures are currently carried out to characterize mononuclear infiltration and obtain additional information about proliferation, migration, antibody secretion, and possible formation of GC. However, in some cases, the MSG biopsy can be negative. Under such circumstances and if SS is suspected, anti-Ro antibodies should be present1,20.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Minor salivary gland biopsy (MSGB) procedure. The following steps should be carried out: (1) incision of 1–2 mm from clinically normal-appearing mucosa of the lower lip between the midline and commissure (at least 4 MSG should be included); (2) fixation in formalin; (3) inclusion in paraffin; (4) taking multiple tissue sections of 4-µm thickness with 200-µm intervals; (5) H&E staining; (6) evaluation of 4 glands or a minimum 8 mm2 of normal glandular surface in search of focal lymphocytic infiltration; and (7) reading different cutting levels, thereby ensuring the detection of foci on each section. The pathological report should describe number and integrity of MSG (i.e., normal-appearing acini, presence or absence of fibrosis, acinar atrophy, and duct dilation, among others) as well as the presence and location of scattered or focal infiltrates. If these latter are present, FS should be calculated. Preferably, 2 different observers should perform the reading. FS: focus score.

Footnotes

  • See SS lymphocytic infiltrate, page 394

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sharma R,
    2. Chaudhari KS,
    3. Kurien BT,
    4. Grundahl K,
    5. Radfar L,
    6. Lewis DM,
    7. et al.
    Sjögren syndrome without focal lymphocytic infiltration of the salivary glands. J Rheumatol 2020;47:394–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Restrepo-Jiménez P,
    2. Molano-González N,
    3. Anaya JM
    . Geoepidemiology of Sjögren’s syndrome in Latin America. Joint Bone Spine 2019 Feb 16 (E-pub ahead of print).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Shiboski CH,
    2. Shiboski SC,
    3. Seror R,
    4. Criswell LA,
    5. Labetoulle M,
    6. Lietman TM,
    7. et al.
    2016 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:9–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Guellec D,
    2. Cornec D,
    3. Jousse-Joulin S,
    4. Marhadour T,
    5. Marcorelles P,
    6. Pers JO,
    7. et al.
    Diagnostic value of labial minor salivary gland biopsy for Sjögren’s syndrome: a systematic review. Autoimmun Rev 2013;12:416–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Fisher BA,
    2. Brown RM,
    3. Bowman SJ,
    4. Barone F
    . A review of salivary gland histopathology in primary Sjögren’s syndrome with a focus on its potential as a clinical trials biomarker. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1645–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. González S,
    2. Aguilera S,
    3. Alliende C,
    4. Urzúa U,
    5. Quest AF,
    6. Herrera L,
    7. et al.
    Alterations in type I hemidesmosome components suggestive of epigenetic control in the salivary glands of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:1106–15.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Christodoulou MI,
    2. Kapsogeorgou EK,
    3. Moutsopoulos HM
    . Characteristics of the minor salivary gland infiltrates in Sjögren’s syndrome. J Autoimmun 2010;34:400–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Jonsson R,
    2. Kroneld U,
    3. Bäckman K,
    4. Magnusson B,
    5. Tarkowski A
    . Progression of sialadenitis in Sjögren’s syndrome. Br J Rheumatol 1993;32:578–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dong L,
    2. Chen Y,
    3. Masaki Y,
    4. Okazaki T,
    5. Umehara H
    . Possible mechanisms of lymphoma development in Sjogren’s syndrome. Curr Immunol Rev 2013;9:13–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Fisher BA,
    2. Jonsson R,
    3. Daniels T,
    4. Bombardieri M,
    5. Brown RM,
    6. Morgan P,
    7. et al.
    Standardisation of labial salivary gland histopathology in clinical trials in primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1161–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Daniels TE,
    2. Cox D,
    3. Shiboski CH,
    4. Schiødt M,
    5. Wu A,
    6. Lanfranchi H,
    7. et al.
    Associations between salivary gland histopathologic diagnoses and phenotypic features of Sjögren’s syndrome among 1,726 registry participants. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:2021–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Greenspan JS,
    2. Daniels TE,
    3. Talal N,
    4. Sylvester RA
    . The histopathology of Sjögren’s syndrome in labial salivary gland biopsies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1974;37:217–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Daniels T,
    2. Aufdemorte T,
    3. Greenspan J
    . Histopathology of Sjögren’s syndrome. In: Talal N, Moutsopoulos HM, Kassan SS, editors. Sjögren’s syndrome: clinical and immunological aspects. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1987:41–52.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Wicheta S,
    2. Van der Groen T,
    3. Faquin WC,
    4. August M
    . Discrepancies in interpretation of the minor salivary gland biopsy in the diagnosis of Sjögren syndrome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2019;77:1628–35.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Fox RI,
    2. Adamson TC 3rd,
    3. Fong S,
    4. Young C,
    5. Howell FV
    . Characterization of the phenotype and function of lymphocytes infiltrating the salivary gland in patients with primary Sjogren syndrome. Diagn Immunol 1983;1:233–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Barrera MJ,
    2. Bahamondes V,
    3. Sepúlveda D,
    4. Quest AF,
    5. Castro I,
    6. Cortés J,
    7. et al.
    Sjögren’s syndrome and the epithelial target: a comprehensive review. J Autoimmun 2013;42:7–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Fox RI
    . Standardisation of labial salivary gland biopsies in Sjogren’s syndrome: importance for the practicing rheumatologist. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:1159–60.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Morbini P,
    2. Manzo A,
    3. Caporali R,
    4. Epis O,
    5. Villa C,
    6. Tinelli C,
    7. et al.
    Multilevel examination of minor salivary gland biopsy for Sjogren’s syndrome significantly improves diagnostic performance of AECG classification criteria. Arthritis Res Ther 2005;7:R343–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Al-Hashimi I,
    2. Wright JM,
    3. Cooley CA,
    4. Nunn ME
    . Reproducibility of biopsy grade in Sjögren’s syndrome. J Oral Pathol Med 2001;30:408–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Pijpe J,
    2. Kalk WW,
    3. van der Wal JE,
    4. Vissink A,
    5. Kluin PM,
    6. Roodenburg JL,
    7. et al.
    Parotid gland biopsy compared with labial biopsy in the diagnosis of patients with primary Sjogren’s syndrome. Rheumatology 2007;46:335–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 47, Issue 3
1 Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
With Minor Salivary Gland Biopsy in Sjögren Syndrome, Is a Negative Result Possible?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
With Minor Salivary Gland Biopsy in Sjögren Syndrome, Is a Negative Result Possible?
DIANA M. MONSALVE, JUAN-MANUEL ANAYA
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2020, 47 (3) 310-312; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190743

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
With Minor Salivary Gland Biopsy in Sjögren Syndrome, Is a Negative Result Possible?
DIANA M. MONSALVE, JUAN-MANUEL ANAYA
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2020, 47 (3) 310-312; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.190743
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • New Advances in the Knowledge of Elemental Enthesis Lesions: Doppler, Erosion, and Thickness
  • Keep It in Mind: Assessing the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Opportunities for Intervention
  • Celebrating The Journal of Rheumatology’s 50th Year of Publication
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire