nach oben

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Erschienen in:

30.07.2021 | Review

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

verfasst von: Wen Liu, An-Rong Zeng, Han-Zhou Tang, Jin-Wei Qiang

Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Ausgabe 7/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

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.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7–30.PubMedCrossRef

Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65:30–54.PubMedCrossRef

Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1893–1907.PubMedCrossRef

National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER): Fast Stats. http://seer.cancer.gov/faststats/. Accessed March 24, 2010.

Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, Habbema JD, Kuipers EJ. Effect of rising chemotherapy costs on the cost savings of colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1412–1422.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375:1624–1633.PubMedCrossRef

Force USPST, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2016;315:2564–2575.CrossRef

Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130–160.PubMedCrossRef

Geenen RW, Hussain SM, Cademartiri F, Poley JW, Siersema PD, Krestin GP. CT and MR colonography: scanning techniques, postprocessing, and emphasis on polyp detection. Radiographics 2004;24:e18.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Imbriaco M, Akhurst T, Hilton S et al. Whole-Body FDG-PET in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma. A Comparative Study with CT. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:107–114.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

12.

Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

13.

Walter SD. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 2002;21:1237–1256.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. GS HJ, ed. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.

15.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

16.

Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–893.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC 3rd, Barish MA, Clarke PD, Ferrucci JT. A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1496–1503.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Miao YM, Amin Z, Healy J et al. A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2000;47:832–837.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Raptopoulos V, McGee JB, Bleday R, Kruskal JB. Role of virtual computed tomographic colonography in patients with colorectal cancers and obstructing colorectal lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:303–311.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Spinzi G, Belloni G, Martegani A, Sangiovanni A, Del Favero C, Minoli G. Computed tomographic colonography and conventional colonoscopy for colon diseases: a prospective, blinded study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:394–400.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, Steinauer-Gebauer AM, Wall SD, McQuaid KR. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001;219:685–692.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Carbone I et al. Detection of colorectal lesions with virtual computed tomographic colonography. Am J Surg 2002;183:124–131.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Wong BC, Wong WM, Chan JK et al. Virtual colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancers in a Chinese population. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;17:1323–1327.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP et al. Use of multidetector-row CT colonography for detection of colorectal neoplasia in patients referred via the Department of Health “2-Week-wait” initiative. Clin Radiol 2003;58:855–861.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Munikrishnan V, Gillams AR, Lees WR, Vaizey CJ, Boulos PB. Prospective study comparing multislice CT colonography with colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal cancer and polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2003;46:1384–1390.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–1719.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Hoppe H, Netzer P, Spreng A, Quattropani C, Mattich J, Dinkel HP. Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1924–1935.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Chung DJ, Huh KC, Choi WJ, Kim JK. CT colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:98–103.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Multicentre Australian Colorectal-neoplasia Screening G. A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust 2006;184:546–550.CrossRef

30.

White TJ, Avery GR, Kennan N, Syed AM, Hartley JE, Monson JR. Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer–a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Dis 2009;11:138–145.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Sali L, Falchini M, Della Monica P et al. CT colonography before colonoscopy in subjects with positive faecal occult blood test. Preliminary experience. Radiol Med 2010;115:1267–1278.PubMedCrossRef

32.

von Atzingen AC, Tiferes DA, Deak E, Matos D, D’Ippolito G. Using computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer—a prospective study in a university hospital in South America. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2014;69:723–730.CrossRef

33.

Weinberg DS, Pickhardt PJ, Bruining DH et al. Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery. Gastroenterology 2018;154:927-934e924.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000;119:300–304.PubMedCrossRef

35.

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

36.

Lauenstein T, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D, Bosk S, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF. MR colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:823–827.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Luboldt W, Luz O, Vonthein R et al. Three-dimensional double-contrast MR colonography: a display method simulating double-contrast barium enema. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:930–932.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, Holtmann G, Debatin JF. MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2002;223:248–254.PubMedCrossRef

39.

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

40.

Leung WK, Lam WW, Wu JC et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:102–108.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, Goehde SC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG. MR colonography: how does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:216–221.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Schlag P, Lehner B, Strauss LG, Georgi P, Herfarth C. Scar or recurrent rectal cancer. Positron emission tomography is more helpful for diagnosis than immunoscintigraphy. Arch Surg 1989;124:197–200.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–522.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F et al. Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:613–620.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Keogan MT, Lowe VJ, Baker ME, McDermott VG, Lyerly HK, Coleman RE. Local recurrence of rectal cancer: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging. Abdom Imaging 1997;22:332–337.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Takeuchi O, Saito N, Koda K, Sarashina H, Nakajima N. Clinical assessment of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis of local recurrence in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 1999;86:932–937.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:759–767 (discussion 767-770).PubMedCrossRef

48.

Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, Beger HG. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg 2000;180:1–5.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Willkomm P, Bender H, Bangard M, Decker P, Grunwald F, Biersack HJ. FDG PET and immunoscintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled antibody fragments for detection of the recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1657–1663.PubMed

50.

Arulampalam T, Costa D, Visvikis D, Boulos P, Taylor I, Ell P. The impact of FDG-PET on the management algorithm for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1758–1765.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Lonneux M, Reffad AM, Detry R, Kartheuser A, Gigot JF, Pauwels S. FDG-PET improves the staging and selection of patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:915–921.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM, Minsky BD, Mazumdar M, Guillem JG. A case-controlled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:22–28.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232:815–822.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027–1034 (discussion 1035-1026).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

55.

Fukunaga H, Sekimoto M, Ikeda M et al. Fusion image of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005;12:561–569.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Bellomi M, Rizzo S, Travaini LL et al. Role of multidetector CT and FDG-PET/CT in the diagnosis of local and distant recurrence of resected rectal cancer. Radiol Med 2007;112:681–690.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al. Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: Comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1388–1396.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Shyn PB, Madan R, Wu C, Erturk SM, Silverman SG. PET/CT pattern analysis for surgical staple line recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:414–421.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Fiocchi F, Iotti V, Ligabue G et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and PET-CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected local recurrence of rectal carcinoma. Radiol Med 2010;115:906–919.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Smeets P, Ham H, Ceelen W, Boterberg T, Verstraete K, Goethals I. Differentiation between peri-anastomotic inflammatory changes and local recurrence following neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy surgery for colorectal cancer using visual and semiquantitative analysis of PET-CT data. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;54:327–332.PubMed

61.

Han A, Xue J, Zhu D, Zheng J, Yue J, Yu J. Clinical value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in postoperative monitoring for patients with colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35:497–500.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Deleau C, Buecher B, Rousseau C et al. Clinical impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography in comparison with computed tomography on the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;23:275–281.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Bamba Y, Itabashi M, Kameoka S. Management of local recurrence of colorectal cancer: the role of PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2011;36:322–326.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Ozkan E, Soydal C, Araz M, Aras G. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen measurement, abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence: a correlative study. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:990–994.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Peng J, He Y, Xu J, Sheng J, Cai S, Zhang Z. Detection of incidental colorectal tumours with 18F-labelled 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:e374-378.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Chiewvit S, Jiranantanakorn T, Apisarnthanarak P et al. Detection of recurrent colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT comparison with contrast enhanced CT scan. J Med Assoc Thai 2013;96:703–708.PubMed

67.

Gade M, Kubik M, Fisker RV, Thorlacius-Ussing O, Petersen LJ. Diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT as first choice in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer due to rising CEA. Cancer Imaging 2015;15:11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

68.

Hwang HS, Han YM, Choi YJ, Koh SH, Park HC. Visual and quantitative comparison of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT findings in the detection of pelvic tumor recurrence in colorectal cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2016;30:355–361.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Odalovic S, Stojiljkovic M, Sobic-Saranovic D et al. Prospective study on diagnostic and prognostic significance of postoperative FDG PET/CT in recurrent colorectal carcinoma patients: comparison with MRI and tumor markers. Neoplasma 2017;64:954–961.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Yu X, Zhu L, Dai D et al. Application and Indication of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Triggered 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scanning in the Detection of Relapse of Colorectal Cancer Patients After Curative Therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:719–725.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Porte F, Uppara M, Malietzis G et al. CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy. Eur Radiol 2017;27:51–60.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2005;60:980–989.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Yu T, Meng N, Chi D, Zhao Y, Wang K, Luo Y. Diagnostic Value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Detecting Local Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 26 Individual Studies. Cell Biochem Biophys 2015;72:443–451.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002;222:337–345.PubMedCrossRef

75.

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

76.

Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:578–585.PubMedCrossRef

77.

van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233:328–337.PubMedCrossRef

78.

Abd-El Khalek AAEK, Fahmy DM. Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Assessment of the Activity of Crohn Disease: 1.5 or 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018;42:688–696.CrossRef

79.

Abdel Razek AA, Abu Zeid MM, Bilal M et al. Virtual CT colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:1698–1702.PubMed

80.

van der Paardt MP, Boellaard TN, Zijta FM et al. Magnetic resonance colonography with a limited bowel preparation and automated carbon dioxide insufflation in comparison to conventional colonoscopy: patient burden and preferences. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:19–25.PubMedCrossRef

81.

Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy. Radiology 2007;245:150–159.PubMedCrossRef

82.

Abdel Razek AAK, Talaat M, El-Serougy L et al. Clinical Applications of Arterial Spin Labeling in Brain Tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019;43:525–532.PubMedCrossRef

83.

El-Serougy L, Abdel Razek AA, Ezzat A et al. Assessment of diffusion tensor imaging metrics in differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas. Neuroradiol J 2016;29:400–407.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer
verfasst von: Wen Liu
An-Rong Zeng
Han-Zhou Tang
Jin-Wei Qiang
Publikationsdatum: 30.07.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Ausgabe 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-021-07166-0

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Update Innere Medizin

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

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Radiologic Imaging Modalities for Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

Europäische Ernährungsgewohnheiten: Das sind die häufigsten Fehler

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

Drei Mythen bei der Antibiotikatherapie

Update Innere Medizin

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2022

Correction to: Increased Fecal Bile Acid Excretion in a Significant Subset of Patients with Other Inflammatory Diarrheal Diseases

Role of Pancreatic Stone Protein as an Early Biomarker for Risk Stratification of Acute Pancreatitis

Patient-Reported Outcome and Clinical Scores Are Equally Accurate in Predicting Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis: A Prospective Study

Ballooning Your Way in Altered Anatomy ERCP: Ready for Deductive Learning

Determinants of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of an Australian Cohort of Patients Admitted with Alcoholic Hepatitis

Impact of Fibrosis-4 Index Prior to COVID-19 on Outcomes in Patients at Risk of Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

Europäische Ernährungsgewohnheiten: Das sind die häufigsten Fehler

Demenzkranke durch Antipsychotika vielfach gefährdet

Drei Mythen bei der Antibiotikatherapie

Update Innere Medizin