Literature DB >> 20495877

Magnetic resonance colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with Lynch syndrome gene mutation.

Eu Jin Lim1, Christopher Leung, Alex Pitman, Damien L Stella, Gregor Brown, Masha Slattery, Kaye Marion, Finlay Macrae.   

Abstract

Lynch syndrome gene carriers have a 50-80% risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines recommend yearly colonoscopy, with associated procedure-related risks. Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) was evaluated as a non-invasive alternative for CRC screening in this high-risk population. Adult Lynch syndrome gene carriers underwent both screening procedures on the same day. MRI radiologists read the scans and rated image quality. Endoscopists performed colonoscopy unaware of MRC findings until after procedure completion. If lesions were detected, their number, size and location were noted. Post-procedure, patients compared discomfort and inconvenience of MRC and colonoscopy on a visual analogue scale. Thirty patients were recruited. 83% of the MRC scans were of adequate to good quality. MRC detected three lesions in three patients (70, 36, 17 mm). All 3 were independently detected on colonoscopy, excised and found to be CRC. MRC failed to detect a 3 mm CRC found on colonoscopy. CRC prevalence was 13%. Colonoscopy detected a further 30 polyps, all <10 mm. Of these, 17 were hyperplastic polyps and 10 normal mucosa. Colonoscopy had a false positive rate of 32% as defined by histology. MRC failed to detect any polyp <10 mm. Mean patient discomfort scores were 20% for MRC and 68% for colonoscopy, P = 0.003. Mean patient inconvenience scores were 54% for MRC and 52% for colonoscopy, P = 0.931. MRC was reliable in detecting large polyps, potentially CRC. However MRC currently has poor sensitivity in detecting small polyps, limiting its utility in adenoma screening at this time. MRC was associated with less discomfort than CC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20495877     DOI: 10.1007/s10689-010-9350-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Cancer        ISSN: 1389-9600            Impact factor:   2.375


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  MR colonography: 1.5T versus 3T.

Authors:  Thomas C Lauenstein; Bettina Saar; Diego R Martin
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.266

3.  Evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image quality.

Authors:  Bettina Saar; Juergen M Gschossmann; Harald M Bonel; Ralph Kickuth; Peter Vock; Peter Netzer
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome.

Authors:  Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Arto Kivisaari; Leena Kivisaari; Seppo Sarna; Heikki J Järvinen
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.375

5.  Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families.

Authors:  Wouter H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Fred H Menko; Babs G Taal; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F Vasen
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.585

6.  Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  S Purkayastha; P P Tekkis; T Athanasiou; O Aziz; R Negus; W Gedroyc; A W Darzi
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  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

8.  Incidental extracolonic findings on bright lumen MR colonography in a population at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Erlangga Yusuf; Jasper Florie; Chung Yung Nio; Sebastian Jensch; Rutger A J Nievelstein; Lubbertus Baak; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 3.528

9.  Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment.

Authors:  C H Viiala; M Zimmerman; D J E Cullen; N E Hoffman
Journal:  Intern Med J       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.048

Review 10.  Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: preventive management.

Authors:  Hwei-Ju Annie Yu; Kevin M Lin; David M Ota; Henry T Lynch
Journal:  Cancer Treat Rev       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 12.111

View more
  4 in total

1.  A pilot study evaluating genetic alterations that drive tobacco- and betel quid-associated oral cancer in Northeast India.

Authors:  Dhirendra Singh Yadav; Indranil Chattopadhyay; Anand Verma; Thoudam Regina Devi; L C Singh; Jagannath Dev Sharma; Amal Ch Kataki; Sunita Saxena; Sujala Kapur
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-06-19

Review 2.  Potential risks associated with the use of ionizing radiation for imaging and treatment of colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome patients.

Authors:  Mingzhu Sun; Jayne Moquet; Michele Ellender; Simon Bouffler; Christophe Badie; Rachel Baldwin-Cleland; Kevin Monahan; Andrew Latchford; David Lloyd; Susan Clark; Nicola A Anyamene; Elizabeth Ainsbury; David Burling
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 2.375

3.  Systematic review: non-endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in individuals with Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  Elsa L S A van Liere; Nanne K H de Boer; Evelien Dekker; Monique E van Leerdam; Tim G J de Meij; Dewkoemar Ramsoekh
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 9.524

Review 4.  Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review.

Authors:  Conchubhair Winters; Venkataraman Subramanian; Pietro Valdastri
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-09-21       Impact factor: 5.374

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.