nach oben

European Radiology

Erschienen in:

01.07.2006 | Gastrointestinal

MR colonography: current status

verfasst von: Thomas C. Lauenstein

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.

Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics 2005. Cancer J Clin 55:10–30PubMedCrossRef

Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC (1975) The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36:2251–2270PubMed

Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, Waye JD et al (1990) Risk and surveillance of individuals with colorectal polyps. WHO Collaborating Center for the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. World Health Organization bulletin. New York, 68:789–795

Murakami R, Tsukuma H, Kanamori S et al (1990) Natural history of colorectal polyps and the effect of polypectomy on occurrence of cancer. Int J Cancer 46:159–164PubMedCrossRef

Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale—update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560CrossRefPubMed

Harewood GC, Wierseman MJ, Melton LJ 3rd (2002) A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 97:3186–3194CrossRefPubMed

Dominitz JA, EIsen GM, Baron TH et al (2003) Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 57:441–445CrossRefPubMed

Lieberman D (1994) Colon cancer screening: beyond efficacy. Gastroenterology 106:803–807PubMed

Frommer DJ (1998) What’s new in colorectal cancer screening? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:528–533PubMed

10.

Akekar GA, Yer J, Hung R et al (2001) Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointes Endosc 54:310–315CrossRef

11.

Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al (2002) Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 12:1410–1415CrossRefPubMed

12.

McFarland EG, Brink JA, Pilgram TK, Heiken JP, Balfe DM, Hirselj DA, Weinstock L, Littenberg B (2001) Spiral CT colonography: reader agreement and diagnostic performance with two- and three-dimensional image-display techniques. Radiology 218:375–383PubMed

13.

Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L, Ekbom A, Blomqvist P (2005) Patient factors influencing the completion rate in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 37:113–118CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cirocco WC, Rusin LC (1995) Factors that predict incomplete colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 389:964–968CrossRef

15.

Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, Butler JA, Puckett ML, Hildebrandt HA, Wong RK, Nugent PA, Mysliwiec PA, Schindler WR (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349:2191–2200CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sosna J, Morrin MM, Kruskal JB, Lavin PT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V (2003) CT colonography of colorectal polyps: a metaanalysis. Am J Roentgenol 18:1593–1598PubMed

17.

Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA, Maccarty RL, Welch TJ, Ilstrup DM, Ahlquist DA (2003) Prospective blinded evaluation of computed tomographic colonography for screen detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 125:311–319CrossRefPubMed

18.

Macari M, Bini EJ, Jacobs SL, Naik S, Lui YW, Milano A, Rajapaksa R, Megibow AJ, Babb J (2004) Colorectal polyps and cancers in asymptomatic average-risk patients: evaluation with CT colonography. Radiology 230:629–636PubMedCrossRef

19.

Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Fried M, Debatin JF (2000) Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 216:383–388PubMed

20.

Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM, Casciani E, D’Orta C, D’Amato M, Gualdi GF (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119:300–304CrossRefPubMed

21.

Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, Gohde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG (2001) Dark lumen MR-colonography: initial experience. Rofo 173:785–789PubMed

22.

Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2006) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238:143–149PubMedCrossRef

23.

Debatin JF, Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P (1999) Virtual colonoscopy in 1999: computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging? Endoscopy 31:174–179CrossRefPubMed

24.

NAS. National Academies ( 2005) Biological effects of ionizing radiation (BEIR) VII: National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu

25.

Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738PubMedCrossRef

26.

Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA, Cohan RH (1996) Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: a review of 36 cases. Am J Reontgenol 167:847–849PubMed

27.

Prince MR, Arnoldus C, Frisoli JK (1996) Nephrotoxicity of high-dose gadolinium compared with iodinated contrast. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:162–166PubMedCrossRef

28.

Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, Stewart ET, et al (1992) The National Polyp Study. Design, methods, and characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. Cancer 70:1236–1245PubMedCrossRef

29.

Winkleman BJ, Matthews DE, Wiebke EA (2003) Colorectal cancer screening at a Veterans Affairs hospital. Am J Surg 186:468–471CrossRefPubMed

30.

Saar B, Rosch T, Rummeny EJ (2002) Colorectal cancer screening: a challenge for magnetic resonance colonography. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13:427–434CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kuehle C, Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Nuefer M, Barkhausen J, Lauenstein TC (2005) MR colonography without bowel cleansing: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. RSNA 2005

32.

Villavicencio RT, Rex DK (2000) Colonic adenomas: prevalence and incidence rates, growth rates, and miss rates at colonoscopy. Semin Gastrointest Dis 11:185–193PubMed

33.

Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2005) Incomplete conventional colonoscopy: magnetic resonance colonography in the evaluation of the proximal colon. Endoscopy 37:816–820CrossRefPubMed

34.

Gryspeerdt S, Lefere P, Herman M et al (2005) CT colonography with fecal tagging after incomplete colonoscopy. Eur Radiol 15:1192–1202CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Holtmann G, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF, Goehde SC (2005) MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 234:452–459PubMedCrossRef

36.

Schreyer AG, Scheibl K, Heiss P, Feuerbach S, Seitz J, Herfarth H (2006) MR colonography in inflammatory bowel disease. Abdom Imaging, Jan 30 [Epub ahead of publication]; 10.1007/s00261-005-03776

37.

Schreyer AG, Golder S, Scheibl K et al (2005) Dark lumen magnetic resonance enteroclysis in combination with MRI colonography for whole bowel assessment in patients with Crohn’s disease: first clinical experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11:388–394CrossRefPubMed

38.

Narin B, Ajaj W, Gohde S et al (2004) Combined small and large bowel MR imaging in patients with Crohn’s disease: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 14:1535–1542CrossRefPubMed

39.

Nahon S, Bouhnik Y, Lavergne-Slove A, Bitoun A, Panis Y, Valleur P et al (2002) Colonoscopy accurately predicts the anatomical severity of colonic Crohn’s disease attacks: correlation with findings from colectomy specimens. Am J Gastroenterol 12:3102–3107CrossRef

40.

Fiocca R, Ceppa P (2003) The diagnostic reliability of endoscopic biopsies in diagnosis colitis. J Clin Pathol 56:321–322CrossRefPubMed

41.

Schreyer AG, Rath HC, Kikinis R, Volk M, Scholmerich J, Feuerbach S, Rogler G, Seitz J, Herfarth H (2005) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the assessment of intestinal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a feasibility study. Gut 54:250–256CrossRefPubMed

42.

Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ, Amin Z, Zeegen R, Westaby D et al (2001) MR imaging evaluation of the activity of Crohn’s disease. Am J Roentgenol 6:1325–1332

43.

Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Gerken G, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF et al (2005) MR colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity. Gut 54:257–263CrossRefPubMed

44.

Schreyer AG, Furst A, Agha A et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging based colonography for diagnosis and assessment of diverticulosis and diverticulitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 19:474–480CrossRefPubMed

45.

Ajaj W, Ruehm SG, Lauenstein T et al (2005) Dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography in patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:2316–2322CrossRefPubMed

46.

Saar B, Hoppe H, Gschossmann JM, Stoupis C, Vock P, Netzer P (2005) 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective pilot study of dark lumen MR-colonography for detection and characterization of colorectal lesions. RSNA 2005

47.

Hawighorst H, Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Essig M, Miltner P, van Kaick G (1999) Hepatic lesions: morphologic and functional characterization with multiphase breath-hold 3D gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography—initial results. Radiology 210:89–96PubMed

48.

Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738–1743CrossRefPubMed

49.

Elwood MJ, Ali G, Schlup MT et al (1995) Flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for colorectal screening: a randomized trial of performance and acceptability. Cancer Detec Prev 19:337–347PubMed

50.

Lauenstein T, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D et al (2001) MR colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. Am J Roentgenol 177:823–827PubMed

51.

Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG et al (2002) MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 223:248–254PubMedCrossRef

52.

Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, Lauenstein T, Prassopoulos P, Gourtsoyiannis N (2003) MR colonography with fecal tagging: comparison between 2D turbo FLASH and 3D FLASH sequences. Eur Radiol 13:448–452PubMed

53.

Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A et al (2005) Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging 30:576–583CrossRefPubMed

54.

Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)—a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:2079–2087CrossRefPubMed

Titel: MR colonography: current status
verfasst von: Thomas C. Lauenstein
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2006
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2006
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0260-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

MR colonography: current status

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2006

Differentiation of the various lesions causing an abnormality of the endometrial cavity using MR imaging: emphasis on enhancement patterns on dynamic studies and late contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images

Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography

MRI features of tibiofibular joint dislocation

Recent literature

Diagnosis of perfusion abnormality of the pulmonary artery in Takayasu’s arteritis using contrast-enhanced MR perfusion imaging

Correlation between respiration-induced thoracic expansion and a shift of central structures

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie