Literature DB >> 17341542

Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population.

Christiane A Kuehle1, Jost Langhorst, Susanne C Ladd, Thomas Zoepf, Michael Nuefer, Florian Grabellus, Joerg Barkhausen, Guido Gerken, Thomas C Lauenstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) without bowel cleansing in a screening population and compare the results to colonoscopy as a standard of reference.
METHODS: 315 screening patients, older than 50 years with a normal risk profile for colorectal cancer, were included in this study. For MRC, a tagging agent (5.0% Gastrografin, 1.0% barium sulphate, 0.2% locust bean gum) was ingested with each main meal within 2 days prior to MRC. No bowel cleansing was applied. For the magnetic resonance examination, a rectal water enema was administered. Data collection was based on contrast enhanced T1 weighted images and TrueFISP images. Magnetic resonance data were analysed for image quality and the presence of colorectal lesions. Conventional colonoscopy and histopathological samples served as reference.
RESULTS: In 4% of all colonic segments, magnetic resonance image quality was insufficient because of untagged faecal material. Adenomatous polyps >5 mm were detected by means of MRC, with a sensitivity of 83.0%. Overall specificity was 90.2% (false positive findings in 19 patients). However, only 16 of 153 lesions <5 mm and 9 of 127 hyperplastic polyps could be visualised on magnetic resonance images.
CONCLUSIONS: Faecal tagging MRC is applicable for screening purposes. It provides good accuracy for the detection of relevant (ie, adenomatous) colorectal lesions >5 mm in a screening population. However, refinements to optimise image quality of faecal tagging are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17341542      PMCID: PMC1955492          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.109306

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


  41 in total

Review 1.  Contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: safety update.

Authors:  Miles A Kirchin; Val M Runge
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2003-10

2.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Magnetic resonance colonography: comparison of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional vibe with two-dimensional FISP sequences: preliminary experience.

Authors:  Thomas C Lauenstein; Waleed Ajaj; Christiane A Kuehle; Susanne C Goehde; Thomas W Schlosser; Stefan G Ruehm
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.

Authors:  Peter B Cotton; Valerie L Durkalski; Benoit C Pineau; Yuko Y Palesch; Patrick D Mauldin; Brenda Hoffman; David J Vining; William C Small; John Affronti; Douglas Rex; Kenyon K Kopecky; Susan Ackerman; J Steven Burdick; Cecelia Brewington; Mary A Turner; Alvin Zfass; Andrew R Wright; Revathy B Iyer; Patrick Lynch; Michael V Sivak; Harold Butler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-04-14       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Cancer statistics, 2004.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Ram C Tiwari; Taylor Murray; Asma Ghafoor; Alicia Samuels; Elizabeth Ward; Eric J Feuer; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

Authors:  Pauline A Mysliwiec; Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 25.391

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

Authors:  W Ajaj; G Pelster; U Treichel; F M Vogt; J F Debatin; S G Ruehm; T C Lauenstein
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.

Authors:  Stephen L Ristvedt; Elizabeth G McFarland; Leonard B Weinstock; Eric P Thyssen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 9.  CT and MR colonography: scanning techniques, postprocessing, and emphasis on polyp detection.

Authors:  Remy W F Geenen; Shahid M Hussain; Filippo Cademartiri; Jan-Werner Poley; Peter D Siersema; Gabriel P Krestin
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2003-10-03       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  Colonic surveillance by CT colonography using axial images only.

Authors:  John F Bruzzi; Alan C Moss; Darren D Brennan; Padraic MacMathuna; Helen M Fenlon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-19       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  19 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

Review 2.  [MR colography: technique, indications, and findings].

Authors:  T C Lauenstein; S Kinner; S C Ladd
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 0.635

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

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

4.  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

5.  Bimodal visualization of colorectal uptake of nanoparticles in dimethylhydrazine-treated mice.

Authors:  Tao Wu; Wei-Liang Zheng; Shi-Zheng Zhang; Ji-Hong Sun; Hong Yuan
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  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

7.  The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Remond J A Fijneman; Erhan Demirel; Jie-Bin Lew; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap Stoker; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Demonstration of a sucrose-derived contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging of the GI tract.

Authors:  Gary V Martinez; Suryakiran Navath; Kamini Sewda; Venkataramanarao Rao; Parastou Foroutan; Ramesh Alleti; Valerie E Moberg; Ali M Ahad; Domenico Coppola; Mark C Lloyd; Robert J Gillies; David L Morse; Eugene A Mash
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem Lett       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 2.823

9.  MR colonography with a fecal tagging technique and water-based enema for the assessment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Authors:  Piero Boraschi; Francescamaria Donati
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.