Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance

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

PURPOSE

To assess the usefulness of MR colonography (MRC) with a fecal tagging technique and water-based enema in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with suspected or known IBD underwent MRC with a 1.5-T MR system (Siemens Symphony) using a phased-array coil. A fecal tagging technique was performed by oral administration of dense barium sulfate (200 ml) at major meals starting 2 days before the MRI. After a water enema (2000-2500 ml), the MR protocol was carried out, starting with HASTE and true-FISP sequences. Coronal T1w 3D VIBE (2.0 mm thick) was obtained before and 60 s after intravenous administration of Gd chelate. MR images were evaluated by consensus agreement of two observers in terms of image quality and by searching for bowel abnormalities. MRC findings were correlated with our gold standard-conventional colonoscopy (incomplete in 6/22 patients) with histopathological analysis, and surgery (performed in 8/22 subjects).

RESULTS

The MR imaging protocol was completed in all of the investigated subjects. In terms of image quality, 128 out of 132 colon segments (97 %) were considered diagnostic on MR examinations by the two reviewers; signs of bowel inflammation were identified in 74 and 72 % of colon segments of patients with ulcerative colitis (n = 6) and Crohn's disease (n = 15), respectively. In 13/15 patients with Crohn's disease, involvement of both the large and small bowel was demonstrated on MR imaging; perianal abscesses and fistulas were also identified in 2 and 3 of these patients, respectively. In one patient with normal MRC, a diagnosis of IBD could not be confirmed.

CONCLUSION

MRC with a fecal tagging technique and water-based enema is a promising minimally invasive technique for evaluating the bowel in patients with a suspected or established diagnosis of IBD.

History, evolution, and current status of radiologic imaging tests for colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening is thought to be an effective tool with which to reduce the mortality from colorectal cancer through early detection and removal of colonic adenomas and early colon cancers. In this article, we review the history, evolution, and current status of imaging tests of the colon-including single-contrast barium enema, double-contrast barium enema, computed tomographic (CT) colonography, and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography-for colorectal cancer screening. Despite its documented value in the detection of colonic polyps, the double-contrast barium enema has largely disappeared as a screening test because it is widely perceived as a labor-intensive, time-consuming, and technically demanding procedure. In the past decade, the barium enema has been supplanted by CT colonography as the major imaging test in colorectal cancer screening in the United States, with MR colonography emerging as another viable option in Europe. Although MR colonography does not require ionizing radiation, the radiation dose for CT colonography has decreased substantially, and regular screening with this technique has a high benefit-to-risk ratio. In recent years, CT colonography has been validated as an effective tool for use in colorectal cancer screening that is increasingly being disseminated.

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

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to apply qualitative techniques to assimilate data on patient experience and attitudes during MR colonography (MRC) and colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

18 patients (11 male, 8 female, median age 40.5 years), 10 of whom had known colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 8 who were under investigation for suspected colonic neoplasia (non-IBD), underwent MRC and conventional CC. Semi-structured interviews were performed to assimilate test experiences and preferences, and themes were extracted using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified three main themes: (i) physical experience, (ii) information provision and (iii) overall preference. Patients expressed mixed views about the physical experience of MRC but specifically identified water filling, breath holding and lying still as problematic. Anxiety was expressed regarding potential incontinence. Scanner noise interfered with the understanding of instructions, particularly amongst non-IBD patients. Non-IBD patients expressed greater anxiety over the delay in receiving the MRC report than IBD patients. In general MRI was considered as the more informative and safer investigation. Patients reported more physical discomfort during CC (notably IBD patients) related to air insufflation and colonoscopic manipulation but were more satisfied with the feedback they received. 10 patients (56%) stated an overall preference for MRC and 5 (28%) preferred CC. Reasons for preferences stated by the patients included discomfort, speed of the test, safety, perceived diagnostic ability and the ability to take biopsies.

CONCLUSION

Experiences of MRC and CC are complex and influenced by clinical indication. Individuals place different weightings on the relative importance of test attributes including discomfort, noise, immobility, feedback, safety and fear of incontinence and this defines overall preference.

MR colonography and MR enterography

The bowel is a common site for pathologic processes, including malignancies and inflammatory disease. Colorectal cancer accounts for 10% of all new cancers and 9% of cancer deaths. A significant decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and cancer death rates has been attributed to screening measures, earlier detection, and improved therapies. Virtual colonoscopy (VC), also known as computed tomography colonography, is an effective method for detecting polyps. However, in light of increasing concerns about ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging and potential increased risk of future radiation-induced malignancies, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is seen as an increasingly attractive alternative. Improvements in MRI technology now permit three-dimensional volumetric imaging of the entire colon in a single breath hold at high spatial resolution, making VC with MRI possible.

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

Objective

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of MR-colonography for the detection of colorectal lesions.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed for comparative MR-colonography studies, published between May 1997 and February 2009, using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. We included studies if MR-colonography findings were prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy in (a)symptomatic patients. Two reviewers independently extracted study design characteristics and data for summarising sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity in findings between studies was tested using I² test statistics. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated on per patient basis and summary sensitivity on per polyp basis, using bivariate and univariate statistical models.

Results

Thirty-seven studies were found to be potentially relevant and 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The study population comprised 1,285 patients with a mean disease prevalence of 44% (range 22–63%). Sensitivity for the detection of CRC was 100%. Significant heterogeneity was found for overall per patient sensitivity and specificity. For polyps with a size of 10 mm or larger, per patient sensitivity and specificity estimates were 88% (95% CI 63–97%; I² = 37%) and 99% (95% CI 95–100%; I² = 60%). On a per polyp basis, polyps of 10 mm or larger were detected with a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 66–94%; I² = 51%). The data were too heterogeneous for polyps smaller than 6 mm and 6–9 mm.

Conclusion

MR-colonography can accurately detect colorectal polyps more than 10 mm in size

Diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography with fecal tagging

BACKGROUND

MR colonography (MRC) is a non-invasive method of examining the colon, but it is still only used in a few specialized centers on a daily basis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of MRC with improved fecal tagging vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

Between March 2006 and February 2007, consecutive patients who received first-time referrals to CC were asked to participate in the study. Two days prior to MRC, a new contrast mixture (barium/ferumoxsil) was ingested together with four meals each day. Standard bowel cleansing was performed before CC. MRC was evaluated by two blinded observers. MRC results were compared with CC.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were included. The per-polyp sensitivity was 85.7% for polyps 6-10 mm and 81.3% for polyps >10 mm. The per-patient sensitivity/specificity was 100%/80% for polyps >6 mm and 100%/91.4% for polyps >10 mm.

CONCLUSION

MRC showed acceptable per-patient sensitivities, but the per-polyp sensitivities are still compromised by the fecal tagging. MRC may be implemented, but at the present time MRC with fecal tagging is not ready for widespread use, although it remains a very promising diagnostic tool.

Imaging of the gastrointestinal tract-novel technologies

Imaging of the gastrointestinal tract is very useful for research and clinical studies of patients with symptoms arising from the gastrointestinal tract and in visualising anatomy and pathology. Traditional radiological techniques played a leading role in such studies for a long time. However, advances in non-invasive modalities including ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), etc, have in the last decades revolutionised the way in which the gastrointestinal tract is studied. The resolution of imaging data is constantly being improved and 3D acquisition, tools for filtering, enhancement, segmentation and tissue classification are continually being developed. Additional co-registration techniques allow multimodal data acquisition with improved classification of tissue pathology. Furthermore, new functional imaging techniques have become available. Altogether, the future of gastrointestinal imaging looks very promising which will be of great benefit in clinical and research studies of gastrointestinal diseases. The purpose of this review is to highlight the capabilities of the newest techniques to explore the detailed morphology, biomechanical properties, function and pathology of the gastrointestinal tract.

Patient acceptance of MR colonography with improved fecal tagging versus conventional colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is the gold standard for colonic examinations. However, patient acceptance is not high. Patient acceptance is influenced by several factors, notably anticipation and experience. This has led to the assumption that patient acceptance would be higher in non-invasive examinations such as MR/CT colonography (MRC/CTC) and perhaps even higher without bowel preparation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient acceptance of MRC with fecal tagging versus CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a 14-month period, all patients first-time referred to our department for CC were asked to participate in the study. Two days prior to MRC, patients ingested an oral contrast mixture (barium/ferumoxsil) together with four meals each day. Standard bowel purgation was performed before CC. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (34 men, 30 women) patients referred for CC participated in the study. 27% had some discomfort ingesting the contrast mixture, and 49% had some discomfort with the bowel purgation. As a future colonic examination preference, 71% preferred MRC, 13% preferred CC and 15% had no preference. If MRC was to be performed with bowel purgation, 75% would prefer MRC, 12% would prefer CC and 12% had no preference.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there is a potential gain in patient acceptance by using MRC for colonic examination, since MRC is considered less painful and less unpleasant than CC. In addition, the results indicate that patients in this study prefer fecal tagging instead of bowel purgation.

Functional colonography of Min mice using dark lumen dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Dark lumen MRI colonography detects colonic polyps by minimization of the intestinal lumen signal intensity. Here we validate the use of perfluorinated oil as an intestinal-filling agent for dark lumen MRI studies in mice, enabling the physiological characterization of colonic polyps by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. In control and Min (multiple intestinal neoplasia) mice with and without pretreatment with oral dextran sodium sulfate (DSS), polyps as small as 0.94 mm diameter were consistently identified using standard 2D gradient echo imaging (voxel size, 0.23 x 0.16 x 0.5 mm). In serial studies, polyp growth rates were heterogeneous with an average approximately 5% increase in polyp volume per day. In DSS-treated control mice the colon wall contrast agent extravasation rate constant, K(trans), and extravascular extracellular space volume fraction, v(e), values were measured for the first time and found to be 0.10 +/- 0.03 min(-1) and 0.23 +/- 0.09, respectively. In DSS-treated Min mice, polyp K(trans) values (0.09 +/- 0.04 min(-1)) were similar to those in the colon wall but the v(e) values were substantially lower (0.16 +/- 0.03), suggesting increased cellular density. The functional dark-lumen colonography approach described herein provides new opportunities for the noninvasive assessment of gastrointestinal disease pathology and treatment response in mouse models.

MR colonography with fecal tagging: barium vs. barium ferumoxsil

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Both magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomographic (CT) colonography are useful for colon examination. With sensitivities close to those for conventional colonoscopy (CC) for polyps, colonography has been proposed as an alternative to diagnostic CC. MR colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging may be a method of gaining further patient acceptance and widespread use, but the method has to be optimized. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of a new contrast agent mixture and to validate a new method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients referred to CC underwent dark lumen MRC prior to the colonoscopy. Two groups of patients received two different oral contrast agents (barium sulfate and barium sulfate/ferumoxsil) as a laxative-free fecal tagging prior to the MRC. After MRC, the contrast agent was rated qualitatively (with the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio) and subjectively (using a visual analog scale [VAS]) by three different blinded observers.

RESULTS

Evaluated both qualitatively and subjectively, the tagging efficiency of barium sulfate/ferumoxsil was significantly better (P < .05) than barium sulfate alone. The VAS method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents showed a high correlation (observer II, r = 0.91) to the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio and also a high interclass correlation (observer II and III = 0.89/0.85). MRC found 1 of 22 (5%) polyps <6 mm, 2 of 3 (67%) polyps 6-10 mm, and 2 of 2 (100%) polyps >10 mm.

CONCLUSION

MRC with fecal tagging using barium sulfate/ferumoxsil as contrast agent will give better overall assessment of the colon wall compared to barium sulfate alone. Furthermore, the VAS method of evaluating fecal tagging efficiency correlated with the standard method of calculating the contrast-to-wall ratio.

Implementation of MR colonography

BACKGROUND

MR colonography (MRC) is a promising method of examining the colon, but is limited to a few specialist centres. The purpose of this article was to describe the implementation of MRC with fecal tagging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients referred for conventional colonoscopy (CC) were offered MRC with fecal tagging before CC. Two days before MRC patients ingested an oral contrast agent. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed. MR images were rated by a blinded investigator.

RESULTS

In 6 months, 30 consecutive patients were included. The median time in the MR suite was 44 min, 23 min for the MRC examination and 9 min for the evaluation. The median time for CC was 32 min. Sixty-six percent of the patients preferred MRC as the future method of examination, 10% preferred CC, 21% had no preferences. Of the oral contrast agents, barium sulphate with ferumoxsil was significantly better than barium sulphate alone.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the patients found MRC less unpleasant than CC and a majority would prefer MRC over CC as a future colon examination. MRC also appears to be less time consuming to the patients and medical personnel than CC with post-procedural monitoring.

MR Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Patient Acceptance Compared with That of Full-Preparation Colonoscopy

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate participants' experience and preference of magnetic resonance (MR) colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy in participants at increased risk for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study had institutional review board approval; all participants gave written informed consent. In this multicenter study, consecutive participants undergoing conventional colonoscopy because of a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps underwent MR colonography 2 weeks prior to colonoscopy. They all followed a low-fiber diet and were given lactulose and an oral contrast agent (fecal tagging with gadolinium) 2 days before colonography. Before imaging, spasmolytics were administered intravenously, and a water-gadolinium chelate mixture was administered rectally for distention of the colon. Breath-hold T1- and T2-weighted sequences were performed in the prone and supine positions. Participant experience in terms of, for example, pain and burden was determined by using a five-point scale and was evaluated with a Wilcoxon signed rank test; participant preference was determined by using a seven-point scale and was evaluated with the chi2 statistic after dichotomizing.

RESULTS

Two hundred nine participants (77 women, 132 men; mean age, 58 years; range, 23-84 years) were included. One hundred forty-eight participants received sedatives (midazolam) and/or analgesics (fentanyl) during colonoscopy. Participants rated the MR colonography bowel preparation as less burdensome (P<.001) compared with the colonoscopy bowel preparation (10% and 71% of participants rated the respective examinations moderately to extremely burdensome). Participants also experienced less pain at MR colonography (P<.001) and found MR colonography less burdensome (P<.001). Immediately after both examinations, 69% of participants preferred MR colonography, 22% preferred colonoscopy, and 9% were indifferent (P<.001, 69% vs 22%). After 5 weeks, 65% preferred MR colonography and 26% preferred colonoscopy (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Participants preferred MR colonography without extensive cleansing to colonoscopy immediately after both examinations and 5 weeks later. Experience of the bowel preparation and of the procedure was rated better.

MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography (MRC) without bowel cleansing regarding its ability to quantify inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In addition, patient acceptance was compared with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

In all, 29 patients with IBD (17 ulcerative colitis; 12 Crohn's disease) were included. While CC was performed after bowel cleansing as the gold standard, MRC was based on a fecal tagging technique and performed 48-72 hours prior to CC. The presence of inflammation in each of 7 ileocolonic segments was rated for every procedure. Patients evaluated both modalities and dedicated aspects of the examination according to a 10-point-scale (1 = good, 10 = poor acceptance). Furthermore, preferences for future examinations were investigated.

RESULTS

Inflammatory segments were found by means of CC in 23 and by MRC in 14 patients. Overall sensitivity and specificity of MRC in a segment-based detection were 32% and 88%, respectively. Concerning severely inflamed segments, sensitivity increased to 53% for MRC. Overall acceptance of CC was significantly higher compared to MRC (mean value (mv) for MRT = 6.0; CC = 4.1; P = 0.003). For MRC, the placement of the rectal tube (mv = 7.3), and for CC bowel purgation (mv = 6.5), were rated as the most unpleasant. A total of 67% of patients voted for CC as the favorable tool for future examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented data indicate that 'fecal tagging MRC' is not suitable for an adequate quantification of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel. Furthermore, overall acceptance of endoscopic colonoscopy was superior to MRC.

MR colonography with fecal tagging: do individual patient characteristics influence image quality?

PURPOSE

To evaluate if different patient characteristics influence performance of fecal tagging (a new MR colonography (MRC) technique to label stool to avoid bowel cleansing) and, consecutively, MR image quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 333 patients (mean age = 61 years) underwent MRC with fecal tagging. Four segments of the large bowel (ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon) were assessed as for the presence of nontagged stool particles, which can impede an assessment of the colonic wall. Ratings were correlated with patients' characteristics including patient age (<55 vs. > or =55 years), body mass index (BMI) (<25 vs. > or =25), gender, and acceptance levels for fecal tagging. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1332 colonic segments were evaluated. Among them, 327 segments (25%) did not contain any visible stool particles. Considerably reduced image quality was found in 61 segments (5%). Best image quality was found in the sigmoid colon (mean value = 1.9), while image quality of the ascending colon turned out to be worst (mean value = 2.6). Fecal tagging effectiveness showed a reverse correlation with patient age. However, all other characteristics did not have a statistically significant influence on fecal tagging outcome.

CONCLUSION

MRC in conjunction with barium-based fecal tagging led to diagnostic image quality in 95% of all colonic segments. Since tagging results were significantly decreased in patients > or =55 years, tagging protocols should to be modified in this group, i.e., by increasing the time interval of tagging administration.

MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients’ acceptance in a screening population

The aim of this study was to compare optical colonoscopy to fecal-tagging-based MR colonography in a screening population in terms of comfort and acceptance ratings as well as for future preferences as colorectal cancer screening examinations. Two hundred eighty-four asymptomatic patients (mean age 59 years) underwent MRC and OC within 4 weeks. While MRC was based on a fecal tagging technique, OC was performed after bowel cleansing. For OC, sedatives and analgesics were used. Patients evaluated both modalities and certain aspects of the examination according to a 10-point-scale with higher scores denoting a worse experience. Furthermore, preferences for future examinations were evaluated. No significant difference was noted for the overall acceptance of OC (mean value 3.0) and MRC (mean value 3.4). For MRC, the placement of the rectal tube was rated as the most unpleasant part, whereas bowel purgation was regarded most inconvenient for OC. Patients aged 55 years and older perceived most aspects less unpleasant than younger patients. Of the patients, 46% preferred MRC for future screening examinations (OC: 44%). OC and MRC have comparable general acceptance levels in a screening population. Especially for patients declining endoscopy as a screening method MRC may evolve as an attractive alternative.

Prospective study on bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography in comparison with conventional colonoscopy

The aim of this prospective trial was to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) in comparison with conventional colonoscopy (CC). A total of 120 consecutive patients with clinical indications for CC were prospectively examined using MRC (1.5 Tesla) which was then followed by CC. Prior to MRC, the cleansed colon was filled with a gadolinium-water solution. A 3D GRE sequence was performed with the patient in the prone and supine position, each acquired during one breathhold period. After division of the colon into five segments, interactive data analysis was carried out using three-dimensional post-processing, including a virtual intraluminal view. The results of CC served as a reference standard. In all patients MRC was performed successfully and no complications occurred. Image quality was diagnostic in 92% (574/620 colonic segments). On a per-patient basis, the results of MRC were as follows: sensitivity 84% (95% CI 71.7-92.3%), specificity 97% (95% CI 89.0-99.6%). Five flat adenomas and 6/16 small polyps (< or =5 mm) were not identified by MRC. MRC offers high sensitivity and excellent specificity rates in patients with clinical indications for CC. Improved MRC techniques are needed to detect small polyps and flat adenomas.

MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) colonography by using limited bowel preparation in patients with polyps of 10 mm or larger in diameter in a population at increased risk for colorectal cancer, with optical colonoscopy as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review boards of all three hospitals approved the study. All patients provided written informed consent. In this multicenter study, patients undergoing colonoscopy because of a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps were included. Two blinded observers independently evaluated T1- and T2-weighted MR colonographic images obtained with limited bowel preparation (bright-lumen fecal tagging) for the presence of polyps. The limited bowel preparation consisted of a low-fiber diet, with ingestion of lactulose and an oral gadolinium-based contrast agent (with all three major meals) starting 48 hours prior to imaging. Results were verified with colonoscopic outcomes. Patient sensitivity, patient specificity, polyp sensitivity, and interobserver agreement for lesions of 10 mm or larger were calculated for both observers individually and combined.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients (mean age, 58 years; 128 male patients) were included; 41 patients had coexistent symptoms. At colonoscopy, 12 patients had 22 polyps of 10 mm or larger. Per-patient sensitivity was 58% (seven of 12) for observer 1, 67% (eight of 12) for observer 2, and 75% (nine of 12) for both observers combined for polyps of 10 mm or larger. Per-patient specificity was 95% (178 of 188) for observer 1, 97% (183 of 188) for observer 2, and 93% (175 of 188) for both observers combined. Per-polyp sensitivity was 55% (12 of 22) for observer 1, 50% (11 of 22) for observer 2, and 77% (17 of 22) for both observers combined. Interobserver agreement was 93% for identification of patients with lesions of 10 mm or larger.

CONCLUSION

In patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer, specificity of MR colonography by using limited bowel preparation was high, but sensitivity was modest.

Magnetic resonance colonography with limited bowel preparation: A comparison of three strategies

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare three strategies of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three strategies were compared: (S1) gadolinium as oral tagging agent and a gadolinium-water mixture for rectal filling (bright lumen), (S2) oral barium and water rectally, and (S3) oral barium and air rectally. In S2 and S3 (both dark lumen) gadolinium was injected intravenously. Three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted and two-dimensional (2D) T2-weighted sequences were used. Two observers scored diagnostic confidence and image quality (contrast, homogeneity, artifacts), analyzed by chi-squared and Fisher's exact test. Patient experience and preference were determined by questionnaire (Mann-Whitney test).

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients were included, 15 were randomly assigned per strategy. Diagnostic confidence of S1 and S3 is significantly better than for S2. S1 has the additional advantage of showing significantly better contrast between bowel wall and lumen, and showing significantly better homogeneity on both T1- and T2-weighted sequences, but with significantly more artifacts on the T1-weighted sequences. S3 showed significantly better contrast and homogeneity than S2 on the T2-weighted sequences. Bowel preparation of S1 was rated significantly better. Patient preference was comparable.

CONCLUSION

Image quality was best using the bright lumen strategy or the dark lumen strategy using air for rectal filling. Although bowel preparation was rated best using the bright lumen strategy, patient preference was comparable.

MR imaging of the colon: "technique, indications, results and limitations"

In the last few years virtual colonography using MR imaging has shown a proceeding development regarding detection and quantification of colorectal pathologies. Dark-lumen MR colonography (MRC) has been a leading tool for the diagnosis of the entire colon and their pathologies. This review article describes some of the underlying techniques of MRC concerning data acquisition, the need for intravenously applied paramagnetic contrast agent, as well as indications, results and limitations of MRC for the detection of colorectal pathologies. In addition, new techniques to improve patient acceptance are discussed.

MR colonography: current status

Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) has gained access into clinical routine as a means for the assessment of the large bowel. There are widely accepted indications for MRC, especially in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Furthermore, virtual MRC is more and more propagated as a screening tool, with advantages especially inherent to the non-invasive character of this procedure and the lack of ionizing radiation exposition. Beyond a sufficiently high diagnostic accuracy, outstanding patient acceptance is a major advantage of MRC as a diagnostic modality. This review article describes indications, techniques and clinical outcome of current MRC approaches. Furthermore, the impact of fecal tagging concepts is discussed.

MR colonography in inflammatory bowel disease

Colonography based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appears to be a promising technique for polyp assessment in the colon. Several studies have evaluated this method for colonic assessment in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. We briefly review different methodologies such as dark lumen and bright lumen techniques for abdominal MRI. In addition, recently published studies concerning the sensitivity and accuracy in detecting inflammatory bowel changes in inflammatory bowel disease using MRI are discussed.

MR Imaging of the Large Bowel

MR colonography (MRC) is an accurate diagnostic tool for the detection of colorectal masses and inflammatory diseases. This article describes the underlying techniques of MRC that concern data acquisition and image interpretation. Indications for MRC are discussed, and technical developments are explained.