Magnetic resonance colonography with fecal tagging: an innovative approach without bowel cleansing

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.

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.

The GI fluoroscopy suite in the early twenty-first century

Since the application of cross-sectional imaging to the examination of the gastrointestinal tract, dramatic changes have occurred in the modern gastrointestinal fluoroscopic suite. Besides the great decrease in use of fluoroscopy, the types of fluoroscopic examinations requested and performed nowadays are different from those of just 2 or 3 decades ago. This paper will review the recent history and the current uses of fluoroscopy in adults at the beginning of the twenty-first century, illustrated by case images and utilization data from a large academic medical center. Fluoroscopy survives because of its unique illustration of motility in real-time, its superior detection and accurate localization of leaks in post-operative patients, and its ability to provide immediate answers and targeted examinations tailored to the individual patient.

MR colonography with fecal tagging: do individual patient characteristics influence image quality?

PURPOSE

To evaluate if different patient characteristics influence performance of fecal tagging (a new MR colonography (MRC) technique to label stool to avoid bowel cleansing) and, consecutively, MR image quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 333 patients (mean age = 61 years) underwent MRC with fecal tagging. Four segments of the large bowel (ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon) were assessed as for the presence of nontagged stool particles, which can impede an assessment of the colonic wall. Ratings were correlated with patients' characteristics including patient age (<55 vs. > or =55 years), body mass index (BMI) (<25 vs. > or =25), gender, and acceptance levels for fecal tagging. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

A total of 1332 colonic segments were evaluated. Among them, 327 segments (25%) did not contain any visible stool particles. Considerably reduced image quality was found in 61 segments (5%). Best image quality was found in the sigmoid colon (mean value = 1.9), while image quality of the ascending colon turned out to be worst (mean value = 2.6). Fecal tagging effectiveness showed a reverse correlation with patient age. However, all other characteristics did not have a statistically significant influence on fecal tagging outcome.

CONCLUSION

MRC in conjunction with barium-based fecal tagging led to diagnostic image quality in 95% of all colonic segments. Since tagging results were significantly decreased in patients > or =55 years, tagging protocols should to be modified in this group, i.e., by increasing the time interval of tagging administration.

Magnetic resonance colonography vs computed tomography colonography for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: an indirect comparison

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to use meta-regression techniques to compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) and magnetic resonance colonography (MRC), compared with conventional colonoscopy for patients presenting with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHOD

Quantitative meta-analysis was performed using prospective studies reporting comparative data between CTC and MRC individually to conventional colonoscopy. Study quality was assessed and sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and sensitivity analysis were utilized. Meta-regression was used to indirectly compare the two modalities following adjustment for patient and study characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall sensitivity and specificity for CTC (0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.99; 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00 respectively) and MRC (0.91, 95% CI 0.79-0.97; 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99 respectively) for the detection of CRC was similar. Meta-regression analysis showed no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of both modalities (beta=-0.64, P=0.37 and 95% CI of 0.12-2.39). Both tests showed high area under the SROC curve (CTC=0.99; MRC=0.98), with high DORs (CTC=1461.90, 95% CI 544.89-3922.30; MRC=576.41, 95% CI 135.00-2448.56). Factors that enhanced the overall accuracy of MRC were the use intravenous contrast, faecal tagging and exclusion of low-quality studies. No factors improved diagnostic accuracy from CTC except studies with more than 100 patients (AUC=1.00, DOR=2938.35, 95%CI 701.84-12 302.91).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that CTC and MRC have similar diagnostic accuracy for detecting CRC. Study quality, size and intravenous/intra-luminal contrast agents affect diagnostic accuracies. For an exact comparison to be made, studies evaluating CTC, MRC and colonoscopy in the same patient cohort would be necessary.

Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is emerging as a potential complementary investigation for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and also for benign pathology such as diverticular disease. A meta-analysis reporting the use of MRC is yet to be performed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRC compared with the gold-standard investigation, conventional colonoscopy (CC).

METHODS

A literature search was carried out to identify studies containing comparative data between MRC findings and CC findings. Quantitative meta-analysis for diagnostic tests was performed, which included the calculation of independent sensitivities, specificities, diagnostic odds ratios, the construction of summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves, pooled analysis and sensitivity analysis. The study heterogeneity was evaluated by the Q-test using a random-effect model to accommodate the cluster of outcomes between individual studies.

RESULTS

In all, 8 comparative studies were identified, involving 563 patients. The calculated pooled sensitivity for all lesions was 75% (95% CI: 47% to 91%), the specificity was 96% (95% CI: 86% to 98%) and the area under the ROC curve was 90% (weighted). On sensitivity analysis, MRC had a better diagnostic accuracy for CRC than for polyps, with a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 97% to 91%), a specificity of 98% (95% CI: 66% to 99%) and an area under the ROC curve of 92%. There was no significant heterogeneity between the studies with regard to the diagnostic accuracy of MRC for CRC.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that MRC is an imaging technique with high discrimination for cases presenting with colorectal cancer. The exact diagnostic role of MRC needs to be clarified (e.g. suitable for an elderly person with suspected CRC). Further evaluation is necessary to refine its applicability and diagnostic accuracy in comparison with other imaging methods such as computed tomography colonography.

Cardiovascular screening with parallel imaging techniques and a whole-body MR imager

The purpose of this study was to integrate parallel acquisition techniques into a comprehensive whole-body cardiovascular screening protocol to image all relevant organ systems without compromising spatial or temporal resolution. The study was approved by the institutional review board, and oral and written informed consent was obtained from each subject. Fifty subjects underwent whole-body magnetic resonance imaging that included imaging of heart, blood vessels, brain, lungs, and abdominal organs with a standard eight-channel imager. Image quality and pathologic findings were evaluated by two readers. The same protocol was then implemented with a new 32-channel whole-body imager. Depiction of 1476 (73.2%) of 2016 vessel segments was rated as good to excellent, and that of 1744 (86.5%), as without venous overlay. Interobserver agreement was good in evaluation of image quality and excellent in evaluation of pathologic findings. Acquisition time was reduced significantly (P < .05) with use of the whole-body imager and parallel acquisition techniques, which provided high-quality fast cardiovascular imaging.

Digital subtraction dark-lumen MR colonography: Initial experience

PURPOSE

To evaluate image subtraction for the detection of colonic pathologies in a dark-lumen MR colonography exam.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients (12 males; 8 females; mean 51.4 years of age) underwent MR colonography after standard cleansing and a rectal water enema on a 1.5-T whole-body MR system. After suppression of peristaltic motion, native and Gd-contrast-enhanced three-dimensional T1-w gradient echo images were acquired in the coronal plane. Two radiologists analyzed the MR data sets in consensus on two separate occasions, with and without the subtracted images for lesion detection, and assessed the value of the subtracted data set on a five-point Likert scale (1=very helpful to 5=very unhelpful). All imaging results were compared with endoscopy.

RESULTS

Without subtracted images, MR-colonography detected a total of five polyps, two inflammatory lesions, and one carcinoma in eight patients, which were all verified by endoscopy. Using subtraction, an additional polyp was found, and readout time was significantly shorter (6:41 vs. 7:39 minutes; P<0.05). In two patients, endoscopy detected a flat adenoma and a polyp (0.4 cm) that were missed in the MR exam. Sensitivity and specificity without subtraction were 0.67/1.0, and 0.76/1.0 with the subtracted images, respectively. Subtraction was assessed as helpful in all exams (mean value 1.8+/-0.5; Likert scale).

CONCLUSION

We consider subtraction of native from contrast-enhanced dark-lumen MR colonography data sets as a beneficial supplement to the exam.

MR colonography: How does air compare to water for colonic distention?

PURPOSE

To prove the feasibility of air-distended magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) and compare it with water-based distention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In five volunteers, the colon was imaged twice: once after distending the colon with air and a second time after distending the colon with water. A total of 50 patients, who had been referred to colonoscopy for a suspected colorectal pathology were randomized into water-distention (N = 25) and air-distention (N = 25) groups. A contrast-enhanced T1-weighted three-dimensional volume interpolated breath-hold (VIBE) sequence was collected. Comparative analysis was based on qualitative ratings of image quality and bowel distention, as well as contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements for the colonic wall with respect to the colonic lumen. In addition, patient acceptance was evaluated.

RESULTS

Inflammatory changes and colorectal masses were correctly identified on MRC in eight patients each. One 4-mm polyp identified at colonoscopy was missed on water-distended MRC. There were no false positive findings. No significant differences were found between air- and water-distention regarding discomfort levels and image quality. The presence of air in the colonic lumen was not associated with susceptibility artifacts. CNR of the contrast-enhanced colonic wall, as well as bowel distention, were superior on air-distended three-dimensional data sets.

CONCLUSION

MRC can be performed using either water or air for colonic distention. Both techniques permit assessment of the colonic wall and identification of colorectal masses. While discomfort levels are similar for both agents, MRC with air provides higher CNR and better colonic distention.