TY - JOUR
T1 - Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing
T2 - A prospective cross sectional study in a screening population
AU - Kuehle, Christiane A.
AU - Langhorst, Jost
AU - Ladd, Susanne C.
AU - Zoepf, Thomas
AU - Nuefer, Michael
AU - Grabellus, Florian
AU - Barkhausen, Joerg
AU - Gerken, Guido
AU - Lauenstein, Thomas C.
PY - 2007/8/1
Y1 - 2007/8/1
N2 - Background and aim: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) without bowel cleansing in a screening population and compare the results to colonoscopy as a standard of reference. Methods: 315 screening patients, older than 50 years with a normal risk profile for colorectal cancer, were included in this study. For MRC, a tagging agent (5.0% Gastrografin, 1.0% barium sulphate, 0.2% locust bean gum) was ingested with each main meal within 2 days prior to MRC. No bowel cleansing was applied. For the magnetic resonance examination, a rectal water enema was administered. Data collection was based on contrast enhanced T1 weighted images and TrueFISP images. Magnetic resonance data were analysed for image quality and the presence of colorectal lesions. Conventional colonoscopy and histopathological samples served as reference. Results: In 4% of all colonic segments, magnetic resonance image quality was insufficient because of untagged faecal material. Adenomatous polyps >5 mm were detected by means of MRC, with a sensitivity of 83.0%. Overall specificity was 90.2% (false positive findings in 19 patients). However, only 16 of 153 lesions <5 mm and 9 of 127 hyperplastic polyps could be visualised on magnetic resonance images. Conclusions: Faecal tagging MRC is applicable for screening purposes. It provides good accuracy for the detection of relevant (ie, adenomatous) colorectal lesions >5 mm in a screening population. However, refinements to optimise image quality of faecal tagging are needed.
AB - Background and aim: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) without bowel cleansing in a screening population and compare the results to colonoscopy as a standard of reference. Methods: 315 screening patients, older than 50 years with a normal risk profile for colorectal cancer, were included in this study. For MRC, a tagging agent (5.0% Gastrografin, 1.0% barium sulphate, 0.2% locust bean gum) was ingested with each main meal within 2 days prior to MRC. No bowel cleansing was applied. For the magnetic resonance examination, a rectal water enema was administered. Data collection was based on contrast enhanced T1 weighted images and TrueFISP images. Magnetic resonance data were analysed for image quality and the presence of colorectal lesions. Conventional colonoscopy and histopathological samples served as reference. Results: In 4% of all colonic segments, magnetic resonance image quality was insufficient because of untagged faecal material. Adenomatous polyps >5 mm were detected by means of MRC, with a sensitivity of 83.0%. Overall specificity was 90.2% (false positive findings in 19 patients). However, only 16 of 153 lesions <5 mm and 9 of 127 hyperplastic polyps could be visualised on magnetic resonance images. Conclusions: Faecal tagging MRC is applicable for screening purposes. It provides good accuracy for the detection of relevant (ie, adenomatous) colorectal lesions >5 mm in a screening population. However, refinements to optimise image quality of faecal tagging are needed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248142607&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/gut.2006.109306
DO - 10.1136/gut.2006.109306
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 17341542
AN - SCOPUS:34248142607
SN - 0017-5749
VL - 56
SP - 1079
EP - 1085
JO - Gut
JF - Gut
IS - 8
ER -