Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance colonography: A promising new technique

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Colorectal carcinoma is still the second leading cause of cancer-related death, although it arises mostly from benign adenomas. Numerous screening methods are available, but none of them is accepted as ideal. Ultrafast three-dimensional data sets acquired by cross-sectional imaging modalities (CT or magnetic resonance [MR]) in combination with new post-processing modes, known as virtual colonoscopy, have led to a new discussion of screening tests for colorectal cancer. Recently published results indicate a high sensitivity for CT colonography and for MR-based colonography (MRC), with detection rates of greater than 90% for colorectal lesions greater than 10 mm in size. Three-dimensional data acquisition for MRC is performed in less than 1 minute, and no severe complications have been reported. The main advantages of MRC are the lack of ionizing radiation, the low risk of the procedure, and low patient discomfort. MRC has become an attractive diagnostic procedure for colorectal lesions that can also be used as a screening method.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, Thun M: Cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin 2001. 51:15–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eddy DM: Screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990, 113:372–384.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, et al.: Colorectal screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997, 112:594–642.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ransohoff DF, Lang CA: Screening for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood test: a background paper—American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 1997, 126:811–822.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Glick S: Double contrast enema for colorectal cancer screening: a review of the issues and comparison with other screening alternatives. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 174:1529–1537.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG, et al.: A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med 2000, 15:342:1766–1772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, et al.: Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology. 2002, 223(3):615–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M: Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002, 222:337–345. In this study 111 patients underwent CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy on the same day. Patient acceptance was evaluated by questionnaire. Colonography was considered less painful and less difficult overall and was the preferred examination. Discomfort from air filling the colon was the major complaint about CT colonography.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al.: Patient acceptance for CT colonography: What is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1410–1415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K: Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:310–315.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Royster AP, Fenlon HM, Clarke PD, et al.: CT colonoscopy of colorectal neoplasms: two-dimensional and three-dimensional virtual-reality techniques with colonoscopic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1237–1242.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Paparlado G, Polletini F, Frattaroli FM, et al.: Magnetic resonance versus CT-colonography for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:300–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hara AK, Johnson CD, Reed JE, et al.: Detection of colorectal polyps with CT-colonography: initial assessment of sensitivity and specificity. Radiology 1997, 205:59–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickhardt PJ, Choi RJ, Hwang I, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2191–2200. The first large multicenter study evaluating the performance characteristics of virtual colonoscopy in an average-risk screening population. CT colonography with a 3D approach was shown to be an accurate screening method in this population and compared favorably with optical colonoscopy in detection of clinically relevant lesions.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vining DJ, Gelfand DW, Bechthold RE, et al.: Technical feasibility of colon imaging with helical CT and virtual reality [abstract]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994, 162(Suppl):104.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ladd ME, Goehde SC, Steiner P, et al.: Virtual angioscopy on three dimensional MR data sets. Radiology 1996, 199:37–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Debatin JF, Schoenenberger AW, Luboldt et al.: In vivo exoscopic and endoscopic MR imaging of the colon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1065–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Steiner P, et al.: Preliminary assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for various colonic disorders. Lancet 1997, 349:1288–1291.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, et al.: Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 2000, 216:383–388. study showed high sensitivity and specificity rates for bright lumen MRC.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fletcher JG, Luboldt W: CT-colonography and MR colonography: current status, research directions and comparison. Eur Radiol 2000, 10:786–801.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Saar B, Heverhagen JT, Obst T, et al.: Magnetic resonance colonography and virtual magnetic resonance colonoscopy with the 1.0-T system: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol 2000, 35:521–526.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Luboldt W, Steiner P, Bauerfeind P, et al.: Detection of mass lesions with MR-colonography: preliminary report. Radiology 1998, 207:59–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Shoenut JP, Smelka RC, Magro CM, et al.: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy in distinguishing the type and the severity of inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994, 19:31–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Saar B, Helmberger H, Steuber H, et al.: Blinded comparison of virtual colonography with endoscopy in patients with an increased risk of colorectal cancer [abstract]. Radiology 1999, 213(Suppl):340.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, et al.: Dark lumen MRcolonography: initial experience. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2001, 173:785–789. A new strategy for MRC was assessed. This technique demonstrated a higher level of accuracy in detection, particularly of small polyps, and showed a benefit in time needed for diagnosis.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U, et al.: Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003, 52:1662–1664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Scheidler J, Frank C, Becker C, et al.: Virtual colonoscopy using CT and MRI. Radiology 1998, 38:824–831.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al.: MR-Colonography: How does air compare to water for colonic distension? J Magn Reson Imaging 2004, 19:216–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weishaupt D, Patak MA, Fröhlich J, et al.: Fecal tagging to avoid colonic cleaning before MRI colonography. Lancet 1999, 354:835–836. The first approach to reduce the unpleasant colon cleansing prior to MRC.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Ruehm SG, et al.: MR colonography with barium-based fecal tagging: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2002, 223:248–254. This small study showed a very interesting method to reduce bowel cleansing for MRC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T, et al.: MR-colonography with fecal tagging: comparison between 2D turbo FLASH and 3D-FlASH sequences. Eur Radiol 2003, 13:448–452. This study showed a promising technical approach that was able to overcome the difficulties of delineating small lesions using fecal tagging for MRC.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaningerstr. 22, D-81675, München, Germany

    Bettina Saar MD, Ambros Beer MD, Thomas Rösch MD & Ernst J. Rummeny MD

Authors
  1. Bettina Saar MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ambros Beer MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Rösch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ernst J. Rummeny MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saar, B., Beer, A., Rösch, T. et al. Magnetic resonance colonography: A promising new technique. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 6, 389–394 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-004-0055-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-004-0055-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation