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

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/207205
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:
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Jan;81(1):31-8. Epub 2010 Dec 4.
Journal:
European journal of radiology
Issue Date:
1-Feb-2012
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/207205
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.
Language:
eng
ISSN:
1872-7727 (Electronic); 0720-048X (Linking)

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKeeling, Aoife Nen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMorrin, Martina Men_GB
dc.contributor.authorMcKenzie, Charlesen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFarrell, Richard Jen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSheth, Sunil Gen_GB
dc.contributor.authorNgo, Longen_GB
dc.contributor.authorBloch, B Nicolasen_GB
dc.contributor.authorPedrosa, Ivanen_GB
dc.contributor.authorRofsky, Neil Men_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-01T10:01:54Z-
dc.date.available2012-02-01T10:01:54Z-
dc.date.issued2012-02-01T10:01:54Z-
dc.identifier.citationEur J Radiol. 2012 Jan;81(1):31-8. Epub 2010 Dec 4.en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1872-7727 (Electronic)en_GB
dc.identifier.issn0720-048X (Linking)en_GB
dc.identifier.pmid21131152en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.10.028en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/207205-
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.en_GB
dc.language.isoengen_GB
dc.titleIntravenous, contrast-enhanced MR colonography using air as endoluminal contrast agent: Impact on colorectal polyp detection.en_GB
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology, Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Road, Dublin 9, Ireland.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalEuropean journal of radiologyen_GB
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.