Implementation of MR colonography

Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Despite being considered the most effective method for colorectal cancer diagnosis, colonoscopy take-up as a mass-screening procedure is limited mainly due to invasiveness, patient discomfort, fear of pain, and the need for sedation. In an effort to mitigate some of the disadvantages associated with colonoscopy, this work provides a preliminary assessment of a novel endoscopic device consisting in a softly tethered capsule for painless colonoscopy under robotic magnetic steering.

METHODS

The proposed platform consists of the endoscopic device, a robotic unit, and a control box. In contrast to the traditional insertion method (i.e., pushing from behind), a "front-wheel" propulsion approach is proposed. A compliant tether connecting the device to an external box is used to provide insufflation, passing a flexible operative tool, enabling lens cleaning, and operating the vision module. To assess the diagnostic and treatment ability of the platform, 12 users were asked to find and remove artificially implanted beads as polyp surrogates in an ex vivo model. In vivo testing consisted of a qualitative study of the platform in pigs, focusing on active locomotion, diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, safety, and usability.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of beads identified by each user during ex vivo trials was 85 ± 11%. All the identified beads were removed successfully using the polypectomy loop. The mean completion time for accomplishing the entire procedure was 678 ± 179 s. No immediate mucosal damage, acute complications such as perforation, or delayed adverse consequences were observed following application of the proposed method in vivo.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the proposed platform in ex vivo and preliminary animal studies indicates that it is safe and operates effectively in a manner similar to a standard colonoscope. These studies served to demonstrate the platform's added advantages of reduced size, front-wheel drive strategy, and robotic control over locomotion and orientation.

Patient experiences of MR colonography and colonoscopy: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to apply qualitative techniques to assimilate data on patient experience and attitudes during MR colonography (MRC) and colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

18 patients (11 male, 8 female, median age 40.5 years), 10 of whom had known colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and 8 who were under investigation for suspected colonic neoplasia (non-IBD), underwent MRC and conventional CC. Semi-structured interviews were performed to assimilate test experiences and preferences, and themes were extracted using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified three main themes: (i) physical experience, (ii) information provision and (iii) overall preference. Patients expressed mixed views about the physical experience of MRC but specifically identified water filling, breath holding and lying still as problematic. Anxiety was expressed regarding potential incontinence. Scanner noise interfered with the understanding of instructions, particularly amongst non-IBD patients. Non-IBD patients expressed greater anxiety over the delay in receiving the MRC report than IBD patients. In general MRI was considered as the more informative and safer investigation. Patients reported more physical discomfort during CC (notably IBD patients) related to air insufflation and colonoscopic manipulation but were more satisfied with the feedback they received. 10 patients (56%) stated an overall preference for MRC and 5 (28%) preferred CC. Reasons for preferences stated by the patients included discomfort, speed of the test, safety, perceived diagnostic ability and the ability to take biopsies.

CONCLUSION

Experiences of MRC and CC are complex and influenced by clinical indication. Individuals place different weightings on the relative importance of test attributes including discomfort, noise, immobility, feedback, safety and fear of incontinence and this defines overall preference.

MR colonography and MR enterography

The bowel is a common site for pathologic processes, including malignancies and inflammatory disease. Colorectal cancer accounts for 10% of all new cancers and 9% of cancer deaths. A significant decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and cancer death rates has been attributed to screening measures, earlier detection, and improved therapies. Virtual colonoscopy (VC), also known as computed tomography colonography, is an effective method for detecting polyps. However, in light of increasing concerns about ionizing radiation exposure from medical imaging and potential increased risk of future radiation-induced malignancies, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is seen as an increasingly attractive alternative. Improvements in MRI technology now permit three-dimensional volumetric imaging of the entire colon in a single breath hold at high spatial resolution, making VC with MRI possible.

Diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography with fecal tagging

BACKGROUND

MR colonography (MRC) is a non-invasive method of examining the colon, but it is still only used in a few specialized centers on a daily basis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of MRC with improved fecal tagging vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

Between March 2006 and February 2007, consecutive patients who received first-time referrals to CC were asked to participate in the study. Two days prior to MRC, a new contrast mixture (barium/ferumoxsil) was ingested together with four meals each day. Standard bowel cleansing was performed before CC. MRC was evaluated by two blinded observers. MRC results were compared with CC.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients were included. The per-polyp sensitivity was 85.7% for polyps 6-10 mm and 81.3% for polyps >10 mm. The per-patient sensitivity/specificity was 100%/80% for polyps >6 mm and 100%/91.4% for polyps >10 mm.

CONCLUSION

MRC showed acceptable per-patient sensitivities, but the per-polyp sensitivities are still compromised by the fecal tagging. MRC may be implemented, but at the present time MRC with fecal tagging is not ready for widespread use, although it remains a very promising diagnostic tool.

Patient acceptance of MR colonography with improved fecal tagging versus conventional colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is the gold standard for colonic examinations. However, patient acceptance is not high. Patient acceptance is influenced by several factors, notably anticipation and experience. This has led to the assumption that patient acceptance would be higher in non-invasive examinations such as MR/CT colonography (MRC/CTC) and perhaps even higher without bowel preparation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient acceptance of MRC with fecal tagging versus CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a 14-month period, all patients first-time referred to our department for CC were asked to participate in the study. Two days prior to MRC, patients ingested an oral contrast mixture (barium/ferumoxsil) together with four meals each day. Standard bowel purgation was performed before CC. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed.

RESULTS

Sixty-four (34 men, 30 women) patients referred for CC participated in the study. 27% had some discomfort ingesting the contrast mixture, and 49% had some discomfort with the bowel purgation. As a future colonic examination preference, 71% preferred MRC, 13% preferred CC and 15% had no preference. If MRC was to be performed with bowel purgation, 75% would prefer MRC, 12% would prefer CC and 12% had no preference.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that there is a potential gain in patient acceptance by using MRC for colonic examination, since MRC is considered less painful and less unpleasant than CC. In addition, the results indicate that patients in this study prefer fecal tagging instead of bowel purgation.

MR colonography with fecal tagging: barium vs. barium ferumoxsil

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Both magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomographic (CT) colonography are useful for colon examination. With sensitivities close to those for conventional colonoscopy (CC) for polyps, colonography has been proposed as an alternative to diagnostic CC. MR colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging may be a method of gaining further patient acceptance and widespread use, but the method has to be optimized. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of a new contrast agent mixture and to validate a new method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients referred to CC underwent dark lumen MRC prior to the colonoscopy. Two groups of patients received two different oral contrast agents (barium sulfate and barium sulfate/ferumoxsil) as a laxative-free fecal tagging prior to the MRC. After MRC, the contrast agent was rated qualitatively (with the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio) and subjectively (using a visual analog scale [VAS]) by three different blinded observers.

RESULTS

Evaluated both qualitatively and subjectively, the tagging efficiency of barium sulfate/ferumoxsil was significantly better (P < .05) than barium sulfate alone. The VAS method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents showed a high correlation (observer II, r = 0.91) to the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio and also a high interclass correlation (observer II and III = 0.89/0.85). MRC found 1 of 22 (5%) polyps <6 mm, 2 of 3 (67%) polyps 6-10 mm, and 2 of 2 (100%) polyps >10 mm.

CONCLUSION

MRC with fecal tagging using barium sulfate/ferumoxsil as contrast agent will give better overall assessment of the colon wall compared to barium sulfate alone. Furthermore, the VAS method of evaluating fecal tagging efficiency correlated with the standard method of calculating the contrast-to-wall ratio.