Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography with fecal tagging

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stryker SJ, Wolff BG, Culp CE, et al. (1987) Natural history of untreated colonic polyps. Gastroenterology 93(5):1009–1013

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Leslie A, Carey FA, Pratt NR, et al. (2002) The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Br J Surg 89(7):845–860

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, et al. (2003) Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 98(3):578–585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, et al. (2002) Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 222(2):337–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lauenstein T, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D, et al. (2001) MR colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(4):823–827

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. (2004) MR colonography: how does air compare to water for colonic distention? J Magn Reson Imaging 19(2):216–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Morrin MM, Hochman MG, Farrell RJ, et al. (2001) MR colonography using colonic distention with air as the contrast material: work in progress. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(1):144–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. So NM, Lam WW, Mann D, et al. (2003) Feasibility study of using air as a contrast medium in MR colonography. Clin Radiol 58(7):555–559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bielen DJ, Bosmans HT, De Wever LL, et al. (2005) Clinical validation of high-resolution fast spin-echo MR colonography after colon distention with air. J Magn Reson Imaging 22(3):400–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lam WW, Leung WK, Wu JK, et al. (2004) Screening of colonic tumors by air-inflated magnetic resonance (MR) colonography. J Magn Reson Imaging 19(4):447–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lauenstein TC, Debatin JF (2002) Magnetic resonance colonography with fecal tagging: an innovative approach without bowel cleansing. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13(6):435–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, et al. (2003) MR colonography with fecal tagging: comparison between 2D turbo FLASH and 3D FLASH sequences. Eur Radiol 13(3):448–452

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A, et al. (2005) Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging 30(5):576–583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Florie J, Jensch S, Nievelstein RA, et al. (2007) MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Radiology 243(1):122–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC, et al. (2007) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 56(8):1079–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Saar B, Meining A, Beer A, et al. (2007) Prospective study on bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. Br J Radiol 80(952):235–241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Achiam MP, Chabanova E, Logager V, et al. (2007) Implementation of MR colonography. Abdom Imaging 32(4):457–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Achiam M, Chabanova E, Løgager V, Andersen LPH, Thomsen HS, Rosenberg J (2008) MR Colonography with fecal tagging: Barium vs. barium ferumoxsil. Acad Radiol 15(5):576–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U, et al. (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52(12):1738–1743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, et al. (2002) MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 223(1):248–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meier C, Wildermuth S (2002) Feasibility and potential of MR-Colonography for evaluating colorectal cancer. Swiss Surg 8(1):21–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM, et al. (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119(2):300–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, et al. (2000) Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 216(2):383–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weishaupt D, Patak MA, Froehlich J, et al. (1999) Faecal tagging to avoid colonic cleansing before MRI colonography. Lancet 354(9181):835–836

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, et al. (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing using oral and rectal stool softeners (fecal cracking)–a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15(10):2079–2087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, et al. (2001) Dark lumen MR-colonography: initial experience. Rofo 173(9):785–789

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. (2003) Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 349(23):2191–2200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291(14):1713–1719

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Goehde SC, Ajaj W, Lauenstein T, et al. (2004) Impact of diet on stool signal in dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography. J Magn Reson Imaging 20(2):272–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev Ringvej, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Michael Patrick Achiam, Vibeke Berg Løgager, Elizaveta Chabanova, Bodil Eegholm & Henrik Segelcke Thomsen

  2. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology D, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev Ringvej, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Michael Patrick Achiam & Jacob Rosenberg

Authors
  1. Michael Patrick Achiam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vibeke Berg Løgager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizaveta Chabanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bodil Eegholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henrik Segelcke Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jacob Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Patrick Achiam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Achiam, M.P., Løgager, V.B., Chabanova, E. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography with fecal tagging. Abdom Imaging 34, 483–490 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9402-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9402-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation