Intravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: impact on colorectal polyp detection

Improving staging of rectal cancer in the pelvis: the role of PET/MRI

PURPOSE

The role of positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance (PET/MR) in evaluating the local extent of rectal cancer remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the possible role of PET/MR versus magnetic resonance (MR) in clinically staging rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective two-center cohort study of 62 patients with untreated rectal cancer investigated the possible role of baseline staging PET/MR versus stand-alone MR in determination of clinical stage. Two readers reviewed T and N stage, mesorectal fascia involvement, tumor length, distance from the anal verge, sphincter involvement, and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI). Sigmoidoscopy, digital rectal examination, and follow-up imaging, along with surgery when available, served as the reference standard.

RESULTS

PET/MR outperformed MR in evaluating tumor size (42.5 ± 21.03 mm per the reference standard, 54 ± 20.45 mm by stand-alone MR, and 44 ± 20 mm by PET/MR, P = 0.004), and in identifying N status (correct by MR in 36/62 patients [58%] and by PET/MR in 49/62 cases [79%]; P = 0.02) and external sphincter infiltration (correct by MR in 6/10 and by PET/MR in 9/10; P = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in relation to any other features.

CONCLUSION

PET/MR provides a more precise assessment of the local extent of rectal cancers in evaluating cancer length, N status, and external sphincter involvement. PET/MR offers the opportunity to improve clinical decision-making, especially when evaluating low rectal tumors with possible external sphincter involvement.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Colorectal Cancer Screening

This review summarizes the relevant literature regarding colorectal screening with imaging. For individuals at average or moderate risk for colorectal cancer, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening. After positive results on a fecal occult blood test or immunohistochemical test, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer detection. For individuals at high risk for colorectal cancer (eg, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn colitis), optical colonoscopy is preferred because of its ability to obtain biopsies to detect dysplasia. After incomplete colonoscopy, CT colonography is usually appropriate for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average, moderate, or high risk. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Endoluminal contrast for abdomen and pelvis magnetic resonance imaging

Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the abdomen and pelvis can be limited for assessment of different conditions when imaging inadequately distended hollow organs. Endoluminal contrast agents may provide improved anatomic definition and detection of subtle pathology in such scenarios. The available routes of administration for endoluminal contrast agents include oral, endorectal, endovaginal, intravesicular, and through non-physiologic accesses. Appropriate use of endoluminal contrast agents requires a thorough understanding of the clinical indications, available contrast agents, patient preparation, and interaction of the contrast agent with the desired MR imaging protocol. For example, biphasic oral enteric contrast agents are preferred in MR enterography as their signal properties on T1- and T2-weighted imaging allow for evaluation of both intraluminal and bowel wall pathology. In specific situations such as with MR enterography, MR defecography, and accurate local staging of certain pelvic tumors, the use of an endoluminal contrast agent is imperative in providing adequate diagnostic imaging. In other clinical scenarios, the use of an endoluminal contrast agent may serve as an indispensable problem-solving tool.

In vivo MRI virtual colonography in a mouse model of colon cancer

We have developed a reliable noninvasive method for monitoring colonic tumors and mucosal inflammation in a mouse model of colon cancer using magnetic resonance colonography (MRC). After a mild cleansing enema, the colon is filled with Fluorinert, a perfluorinated liquid that does not produce a proton MR signal. The mouse is placed in a dedicated volume MR receiver coil, and high-resolution images are acquired in three planes. The Fluorinert enema distends the mouse colon, creating an artifact-free black homogeneous background, allowing clear delineation of the inflamed colonic wall and visualization of luminal tumors in various stages of development. A gadolinium-based contrast agent can be administered i.v. to the animal to detect mural inflammation or tumor vascularity. This technique is useful for serial monitoring of the effects of preventive or therapeutic strategies on tumor development without killing the animal or requiring invasive endoscopies. The animal preparation and imaging can be completed in ∼1.5 h.

Magnetic resonance colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy: patient burden and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patient burden and preferences for MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients were consecutively recruited to undergo MR colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation and a limited bowel preparation followed within four weeks by colonoscopy with a standard bowel cleansing preparation. Four questionnaires regarding burden (on a five-point scale) and preferences (on a seven-point scale) were addressed after MR colonography and colonoscopy and five weeks after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients (47 men, 52 women; mean age 62.3, SD 8.7) were included. None of the patients experienced severe or extreme burden from the MR colonography bowel preparation compared to 31.5% of the patients for the colonoscopy bowel preparation. Colonoscopy was rated more burdensome (25.6% severe or extreme burden) compared to MR colonography (5.2% severe or extreme burden) (P<0.0001). When discarding the bowel preparations, the examinations were rated equally burdensome (P=0.35). The majority of patients (61.4%) preferred MR colonography compared to colonoscopy (29.5%) immediately after the examinations and five weeks later (57.0% versus 39.5%).

CONCLUSION

MR colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation demonstrated less burden compared to colonoscopy. The majority of patients preferred MR colonography over colonoscopy.

Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomography colonoscopy in children with suspected colonic polyps

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic colonoscopy (IVCTC) in the diagnosis of clinically suspected colorectal polyps in children, using conventional colonoscopy (CC) as the gold standard.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted between July 2008 and June 2010. 30 pediatric patients with history of rectal bleeding and clinically suspected to have colorectal polyps were enrolled. All of the patients underwent IVCTC followed by CC. 30 IVCTC and 31 CC were performed in 30 patients. The findings of IVCTC were compared with those of CC. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain diagnostic performance values of IVCTC on per polyp (sensitivity and positive predictive value) and per patient (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value) basis.

RESULTS

By IVCTC, 63 polyps were detected in 28 patients of which 53 polyps were eligible for inclusion in the statistical analysis. 60 polyps were detected by CC in 28 patients of which 50 polyps were eligible for inclusion in the statistical analysis. The per polyp sensitivity and positive predictive values were 94% and 88.6% respectively. The per patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values were 96.4, 50, 96.4, and 50% respectively. Twenty polyps, in 10 patients, were visualized only after intravenous contrast administration of which 5 polyps, in 5 patients, were likely to have been missed in the absence of the intravenous contrast injection as these polyps were submerged in fluid. Four patients would have had a false negative CTC examination if the intravenous contrast had not been injected; while in another patient, the number of polyps would have been underestimated.

CONCLUSION

CTC is capable of serving as a safe and efficient non-invasive tool for evaluating children with clinically suspected colorectal polyps. Administration of intravenous contrast improves the sensitivity of polyp detection on CTC.