Intravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/126104
Title:
Intravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection.
Authors:
Keeling, Aoife N; Morrin, Martina M; McKenzie, Charles; Farrell, Richard J; Sheth, Sunil G; Ngo, Long; Bloch, B Nicolas; Pedrosa, Ivan; Rofsky, Neil M
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Road, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Citation:
Intravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection. 2010: Eur J Radiol
Journal:
European journal of radiology
Issue Date:
3-Dec-2010
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/126104
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.028
PubMed ID:
21131152
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance of MR colonography with intravenous contrast and luminal air (MRC) to conventional colonoscopy (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approval and written informed consent were obtained. Forty-six patients, both screening and symptomatic, underwent MRC followed by CC. The MRC technique employed 3D T1W spoiled gradient echo sequences performed after the administration of gadopenetate dimeglumine, with parallel imaging. The diagnostic accuracy and tolerance of patients for MRC was compared to CC. RESULTS: Twenty-four polyps were detected in eighteen patients with CC (5 polyps ≥10mm, 4 polyps 6-9mm, 15 polyps ≤5mm). MRC was 66.7% (12/18) sensitive and 96.4% (27/28) specific for polyp detection on a per-patient basis. When analyzed by polyp size, sensitivity and specificity of MRC was 100% (5/5) and 100% (19/19), respectively, for lesions greater than 10mm, 100% (4/4) and 100% (20/20) for lesions 6-9mm, and sensitivity of 20% (3/15) lesions less than 5mm. The sensitivity and specificity of MRC for detecting significant lesions (>6mm) was 100% (9/9) and 100% (15/15), respectively. Regarding tolerance of the exams, there were no significant differences between MRC and CC. Thirty-five percent (n=16) of patients preferred MRC as a future screening test compared to 33% (n=15) for CC. CONCLUSION: MRC using air as an intraluminal contrast agent is a feasible and well-tolerated technique for detecting colonic polyps ≥6mm in size. Further studies are warranted.
Item Type:
Article In Press
ISSN:
1872-7727

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKeeling, Aoife Nen
dc.contributor.authorMorrin, Martina Men
dc.contributor.authorMcKenzie, Charlesen
dc.contributor.authorFarrell, Richard Jen
dc.contributor.authorSheth, Sunil Gen
dc.contributor.authorNgo, Longen
dc.contributor.authorBloch, B Nicolasen
dc.contributor.authorPedrosa, Ivanen
dc.contributor.authorRofsky, Neil Men
dc.date.accessioned2011-03-29T14:23:56Z-
dc.date.available2011-03-29T14:23:56Z-
dc.date.issued2010-12-03-
dc.identifier.citationIntravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection. 2010: Eur J Radiolen
dc.identifier.issn1872-7727-
dc.identifier.pmid21131152-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.028-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/126104-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: To compare diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance of MR colonography with intravenous contrast and luminal air (MRC) to conventional colonoscopy (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approval and written informed consent were obtained. Forty-six patients, both screening and symptomatic, underwent MRC followed by CC. The MRC technique employed 3D T1W spoiled gradient echo sequences performed after the administration of gadopenetate dimeglumine, with parallel imaging. The diagnostic accuracy and tolerance of patients for MRC was compared to CC. RESULTS: Twenty-four polyps were detected in eighteen patients with CC (5 polyps ≥10mm, 4 polyps 6-9mm, 15 polyps ≤5mm). MRC was 66.7% (12/18) sensitive and 96.4% (27/28) specific for polyp detection on a per-patient basis. When analyzed by polyp size, sensitivity and specificity of MRC was 100% (5/5) and 100% (19/19), respectively, for lesions greater than 10mm, 100% (4/4) and 100% (20/20) for lesions 6-9mm, and sensitivity of 20% (3/15) lesions less than 5mm. The sensitivity and specificity of MRC for detecting significant lesions (>6mm) was 100% (9/9) and 100% (15/15), respectively. Regarding tolerance of the exams, there were no significant differences between MRC and CC. Thirty-five percent (n=16) of patients preferred MRC as a future screening test compared to 33% (n=15) for CC. CONCLUSION: MRC using air as an intraluminal contrast agent is a feasible and well-tolerated technique for detecting colonic polyps ≥6mm in size. Further studies are warranted.-
dc.languageENG-
dc.titleIntravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection.en
dc.typeArticle In Pressen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Road, Dublin 9, Ireland.en
dc.identifier.journalEuropean journal of radiologyen
dc.description.provinceLeinster-

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.