Literature DB >> 14687150

Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals.

Wai K Leung1, Wynnie W M Lam, Justin C Y Wu, Nina M C So, Sara S L Fung, Francis K L Chan, Ka-Fai To, Deacons T K Yeung, Joseph J Y Sung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is a new noninvasive diagnostic modality for colorectal cancer. However, the use of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm in average-risk individuals remains unknown. This study determined the performance and the patient's preference of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm.
METHODS: Both high-risk (i.e., symptoms suggestive of colorectal neoplasm, positive fecal occult blood test, history of colorectal cancer in one or more first-degree relatives) and average-risk (i.e., asymptomatic individuals >50 yr) individuals were recruited. MRC was performed immediately prior to conventional colonoscopy (CC) by using air inflation without contrast. The finding on CC together with histology was used as a gold standard. Patients' pain and discomfort score were recorded immediately and 24 h after the procedure. They were also asked about their preferences for the two procedures.
RESULTS: A total of 165 patients (79 average risk and 86 high risk) were recruited. Eight patients had incomplete MRC and one patient had failed CC. Of the remaining 156 patients, 4 were found to have colonic cancer and 31 were found to have 67 polyps. MRC correctly identified 3 cancers (sensitivity 75%, specificity 99.3%) and 4 patients with colonic polyps (sensitivity 12.9% and specificity 97.6%). Sensitivity of MRC tended to be lower in polyps <10 mm in size and in average-risk individuals. The mean procedure time of CC was significantly shorter than MRC (13.6 +/- 6.7 vs 20.6 +/- 2.7 min, p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in the pain and discomfort scores of the 2 procedures, 75% of patients preferred CC to MRC.
CONCLUSIONS: The performance of MRC when used in the detection of colonic neoplasm in average-risk individuals is unsatisfactory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14687150     DOI: 10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04008.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  11 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.  Magnetic Resonance (MR) Colonography for Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-09-01

3.  Screening methods for early detection of colorectal cancers and polyps: summary of evidence-based analyses.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2009-09-01

Review 4.  Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Richard A Kozarek; Michael Gluck; Geoffrey C Jiranek; Johannes Koch; Kris V Kowdley; Shayan Irani; Matthew Nguyen; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: clinical application.

Authors:  Qing He; Ting Rao; Yong-Song Guan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Mechanisms of Electrical Activation and Conduction in the Gastrointestinal System: Lessons from Cardiac Electrophysiology.

Authors:  Gary Tse; Eric Tsz Him Lai; Jie Ming Yeo; Vivian Tse; Sunny Hei Wong
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 4.566

7.  Colonoscopy detects significantly more flat adenomas than 3-tesla magnetic resonance colonography: a pilot trial.

Authors:  Robert Hüneburg; Guido Kukuk; Jacob Nattermann; Christoph Endler; Arndt-Hendrik Penner; Karsten Wolter; Hans Schild; Christian Strassburg; Tilman Sauerbruch; Volker Schmitz; Winfried Willinek
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-01-28

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studies.

Authors:  Frank M Zijta; Shandra Bipat; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-21       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Wen Liu; An-Rong Zeng; Han-Zhou Tang; Jin-Wei Qiang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 3.487

Review 10.  Competition in Colon Cancer Screening? What Is the Role of Colonoscopy?

Authors:  Arthur Hoffman; Daniel Teubner; Ralf Kiesslich
Journal:  Viszeralmedizin       Date:  2014-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.