Namita S Gandhi1, Jonathan R Dillman2, David J Grand3, Chenchan Huang4, Joel G Fletcher5, Mahmoud M Al-Hawary6, Sudha A Anupindi7, Mark E Baker8, David H Bruining9, Manjil Chatterji10, Jeff L Fidler5, Michael S Gee11, Joseph R Grajo12, Flavius F Guglielmo13, Tracy A Jaffe14, Seong Ho Park15, Jordi Rimola16, Bachir Taouli17, Stuart A Taylor18, Benjamin Yeh19. 1. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/L10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. gandhin@ccf.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia & University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave/L10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 9. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. 13. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 14. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 15. Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 16. Department of Radiology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 17. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 18. Centre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK. 19. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To survey Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease (CD) Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) members to understand state-of-the-art CT/MR enterography (CTE/MRE) protocols and variability between institutions. METHODS: This study was determined by an institutional review board to be "exempt" research. The survey consisted of 70 questions about CTE/MRE patient preparation, administration of contrast materials, imaging techniques, and other protocol details. The survey was administered to DFP members using SurveyMonkey® (Surveymonkey.com). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 16 DFP institutions (3 non-USA, 2 pediatric); 15 (94%) were academic/university-based. 10 (63%) Institutions image most CD patients with MRE; 4 (25%) use CTE and MRE equally. Hypoperistaltic medication is given for MRE at 13 (81%) institutions versus only 2 (13%) institutions for CTE. Most institutions have a technologist or nurse monitor oral contrast material drinking (n = 12 for CTE, 75%; n = 11 for MRE, 69%). 2 (13%) institutions use only dual-energy capable scanners for CTE, while 9 (56%) use either a single-energy or dual-energy scanner based on availability. Axial CTE images are reconstructed at 2-3 mm thickness at 8 (50%) institutions, > 3 mm at 5 (31%), and < 2 mm at 3 (19%) institutions. 13 (81%) institutions perform MRE on either 1.5 or 3T scanners without preference. All institutions perform MRE multiphase postcontrast imaging (median = 4 phases), ranging from 20 to 600 s after contrast material injection. CONCLUSION: CTE and MRE protocol knowledge from DFP institutions can help radiology practices optimize/standardize protocols, potentially improving image quality and patient outcomes, permitting objective comparisons between examinations, and facilitating research.
PURPOSE: To survey Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease (CD) Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) members to understand state-of-the-art CT/MR enterography (CTE/MRE) protocols and variability between institutions. METHODS: This study was determined by an institutional review board to be "exempt" research. The survey consisted of 70 questions about CTE/MRE patient preparation, administration of contrast materials, imaging techniques, and other protocol details. The survey was administered to DFP members using SurveyMonkey® (Surveymonkey.com). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Responses were received from 16 DFP institutions (3 non-USA, 2 pediatric); 15 (94%) were academic/university-based. 10 (63%) Institutions image most CDpatients with MRE; 4 (25%) use CTE and MRE equally. Hypoperistaltic medication is given for MRE at 13 (81%) institutions versus only 2 (13%) institutions for CTE. Most institutions have a technologist or nurse monitor oral contrast material drinking (n = 12 for CTE, 75%; n = 11 for MRE, 69%). 2 (13%) institutions use only dual-energy capable scanners for CTE, while 9 (56%) use either a single-energy or dual-energy scanner based on availability. Axial CTE images are reconstructed at 2-3 mm thickness at 8 (50%) institutions, > 3 mm at 5 (31%), and < 2 mm at 3 (19%) institutions. 13 (81%) institutions perform MRE on either 1.5 or 3T scanners without preference. All institutions perform MRE multiphase postcontrast imaging (median = 4 phases), ranging from 20 to 600 s after contrast material injection. CONCLUSION: CTE and MRE protocol knowledge from DFP institutions can help radiology practices optimize/standardize protocols, potentially improving image quality and patient outcomes, permitting objective comparisons between examinations, and facilitating research.