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

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies reported various diagnostic value of radiologic imaging modalities for diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (CRC).

AIMS

To summary the diagnosis and management of CRC using computed tomography colonography (CTC), magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), and positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library for studies published before April 2021. The diagnostic performance of CTC, MRC, and PET/CT for CRC was summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies (17 studies for CTC, 8 studies for MRC, and 29 studies for PET/CT) were selected for final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for CTC ranged from 27 to 100%, 88 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CTC were 0.97 (95% CI 0.88-0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-1.00). The sensitivity and specificity for MRC ranged from 48 to 100%, 60 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRC were 0.98 (95% C: 0.77-1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.84-0.98). The sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT ranged from 84 to 100%, 33 to 100%, respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CTC, MRC, and PET/CT was 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), and 0.97 (0.95% CI 0.95-0.98), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested both CTC and MRC with relative higher diagnostic value for diagnosing CRC, while PET/CT with higher diagnostic value in detecting local recurrence for patients with CRC.

Comparison of patients' tolerance between computed tomography enterography and double-balloon enteroscopy

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography enterography (CTE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) are widely used in diagnosis of small bowel diseases. Both of these examinations bring discomfort to patients. The aim of this study was to compare patients' tolerance and preference between CTE and DBE.

METHODS

From August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016, patients with suspected or known small bowel diseases who underwent both CTE and DBE were prospectively enrolled in our study. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire evaluating discomfort of the procedure after each examination.

RESULTS

One hundred and seven patients completed our study. Abdominal distension, painfulness, tenesmus, general discomfort, prolonged duration, difficulty in completing the test, and discomfort after the examination were significantly lower with CTE than with DBE (P<0.001, respectively). Mannitol intake (47.7%), bowel preparation (31.9%), and radiation exposure (15.0%) were regarded as the three most intolerable burdens in CTE. Painfulness (38.3%), bowel preparation (26.2%), and invasiveness (16.8%) were considered as the three most unacceptable parts of DBE. More patients (61.7%) preferred to repeat CTE rather than DBE (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to DBE, CTE was a more tolerable and less burdensome examination and enjoyed higher preference by most patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

Imaging may be promising for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, since it has test characteristics comparable with colonoscopy but is less invasive. We aimed to assess the potential of CT colonography (CTC) and MR colonography (MRC) in terms of (cost-effectiveness) using the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer model.

METHODS

We compared several CTC and MRC strategies with 5- or 10-yearly screening intervals with no screening, 10-yearly colonoscopy screening and biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. We assumed trial-based participation rates in the base-case analyses and varied the rates in sensitivity analyses. Incremental lifetime costs and health effects were estimated from a healthcare perspective.

RESULTS

The health gain of CTC and MRC was similar and ranged from 0.031 to 0.048 life-year gained compared with no screening, for 2-5 screening rounds. Lifetime costs per person for MRC strategies were €60-110 higher than those for CTC strategies with an equal number of screening rounds. All imaging-based strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. FIT screening was the dominant screening strategy, leading to most LYG and highest cost-savings. Compared with three rounds of colonoscopy screening, CTC with five rounds was found to be cost-effective in an incremental analysis of imaging strategies. Assumptions on screening participation have a major influence on the ordering of strategies in terms of costs and effects.

CONCLUSION

CTC and MRC have potential for CRC screening, compared with no screening and compared with three rounds of 10-yearly colonoscopy screening. When taking FIT screening as the reference, imaging is not cost-effective. Participation is an important driver of effectiveness and cost estimates.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of MRC screening for CRC.

Use of Imaging Techniques in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases That Minimize Radiation Exposure

The use of imaging in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has grown exponentially in the last few years. This has raised concerns about the risk of high cumulative level of radiation exposure from medical imaging in IBD patients during their lifetime, especially when the disease begins in pediatric age. Physicians caring for IBD children should be aware of the malignant potential of ionizing radiation and of the availability of alternative radiation-free techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US), in order to use them whenever possible. This review will focus on the value of US and MRI in pediatric IBD.