Literature DB >> 14633953

Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology.

W Ajaj1, G Pelster, U Treichel, F M Vogt, J F Debatin, S G Ruehm, T C Lauenstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and usefulness of a new magnetic resonance (MR) colonography technique for the detection of colorectal pathology in comparison with conventional colonoscopy as the standard of reference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 122 subjects with suspected colorectal disease underwent "dark lumen" MR colonography. A contrast enhanced T1w three dimensional VIBE sequence was collected after rectal administration of water. The presence of colorectal masses and inflammatory lesions were documented. Results were compared with those of a subsequently performed colonoscopy.
RESULTS: MR colonography was found to be accurate regarding detection of clinically relevant colonic lesions exceeding 5 mm in size, with sensitivity and specificity values of 93%/100%.
CONCLUSION: Dark lumen MR colonography can be considered as a promising alternative method for the detection of colorectal disease. In addition, it allows assessment of extraluminal organs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14633953      PMCID: PMC1773877          DOI: 10.1136/gut.52.12.1738

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  26 in total

1.  MR colonography using colonic distention with air as the contrast material: work in progress.

Authors:  M M Morrin; M G Hochman; R J Farrell; H Marquesuzaa; S Rosenberg; R R Edelman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients.

Authors:  T L Angtuaco; G D Banaad-Omiotek; C W Howden
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  MR enteroclysis protocol optimization: comparison between 3D FLASH with fat saturation after intravenous gadolinium injection and true FISP sequences.

Authors:  N Gourtsoyiannis; N Papanikolaou; J Grammatikakis; T Maris; P Prassopoulos
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions.

Authors:  G Pappalardo; E Polettini; F M Frattaroli; E Casciani; C D'Orta; M D'Amato; G F Gualdi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Colon carcinoma: MR imaging with CO2 enema--pilot study.

Authors:  D J Lomas; R R Sood; M J Graves; R Miller; N R Hall; A K Dixon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  MR imaging of the small bowel with a true-FISP sequence after enteroclysis with water solution.

Authors:  N Gourtsoyiannis; N Papanikolaou; J Grammatikakis; T Maris; P Prassopoulos
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 7.  Colonic adenomas: prevalence and incidence rates, growth rates, and miss rates at colonoscopy.

Authors:  R T Villavicencio; D K Rex
Journal:  Semin Gastrointest Dis       Date:  2000-10

8.  Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography.

Authors:  W Luboldt; P Bauerfeind; S Wildermuth; B Marincek; M Fried; J F Debatin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Dark lumen MR-colonography: initial experience.

Authors:  T C Lauenstein; C U Herborn; F M Vogt; S C Göhde; J F Debatin; S G Ruehm
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2001-09

10.  Histological assessment of colorectal adenomas by size. Are polyps less than 10 mm in size clinically important?

Authors:  A J Aldridge; J N Simson
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  2001-10
View more
  35 in total

1.  MR colonography without bowel cleansing or water enema: a pilot study.

Authors:  A Sambrook; D Mcateer; S Yule; P Phull
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  The virtuosity of virtuality or how real is virtual colonography.

Authors:  H Herfarth; A G Schreyer
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Detecting inflammation in the unprepared pediatric colon - how reliable is magnetic resonance enterography?

Authors:  Joy L Barber; Adriana Chebar Lozinsky; Fevronia Kiparissi; Neil Shah; Tom A Watson
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-02-11

4.  Evaluation of Crohn's disease activity: initial validation of a magnetic resonance enterography global score (MEGS) against faecal calprotectin.

Authors:  Jesica C Makanyanga; Doug Pendsé; Nikolaos Dikaios; Stuart Bloom; Sara McCartney; Emma Helbren; Elaine Atkins; Terry Cuthbertson; Shonit Punwani; Alastair Forbes; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Combined PET/CT colonography: is this the way forward?

Authors:  A G Schreyer; R Kikinis
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)--a feasibility study.

Authors:  Waleed Ajaj; Thomas C Lauenstein; Hubert Schneemann; Christiane Kuehle; Christoph U Herborn; Susanne C Goehde; Stefan G Ruehm; Mathias Goyen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-07-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Total-body MR-imaging in oncology.

Authors:  Juergen F Schaefer; Heinz-Peter W Schlemmer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  New diagnostic imaging tools for inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  B A Mackalski; C N Bernstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  The future of virtual colonography. Interview by Paul C Adams.

Authors:  Helen Fenlon
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.522

10.  Colorectal neoplasm: magnetic resonance colonography with fat enema-initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Shuai Zhang; Jun-Wei Peng; Qiang-Ying Shi; Feng Tang; Min-Guo Zhong
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.