Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic Resonance Colonography

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy

  • 949 Accesses

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Western societies. The majority of CRC arises from adenomas over a period of time, and development into CRC is related to size and histology [1]. Hyperplastic polyps are considered to have very low risk of malignant transformation in contrast to adenomas.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Iafrate F, Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, et al. Portrait of a polyp: the CTC dilemma. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35:49–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology. 2005;237:893–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zijta FM, Bipat S, Stoker J et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studies. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(5):1031–1046 (PMID: 19936754).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE, et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy. Radiology. 2007;245:150–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ajaj WM, Ruehm SG, Ladd SC, et al. Utility of dark-lumen MR colonography for the assessment of extra-colonic organs. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1574–1583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005;236:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:575–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lauenstein TC, Saar B, Martin DR. MR colonography: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007;15:395–402

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thornton E, Morrin MM, Yee J. Current status of MR colonography. Radiographics. 2010;30:201–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morrin MM, Farrell RJ, Keogan MT, et al. CT colonography: colonic distention improved by dual positioning but not intravenous glucagon. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:525–530.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ajaj WM, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity. Gut. 2005;54:257–263.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Merkle EM, Dale BM. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1524–1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Paulson EK.Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lauenstein TC. MR colonography: current status. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1519–1526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, et al. Dark lumen MR colonography: initial experience. Rofo. 2001;173:785–789.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rex DK. Dosing considerations in the use of sodium phosphate bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:1466–1475.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology. 2003;227:378–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Weishaupt D, Patak MA, Froehlich J, et al. Fecal tagging to avoid colonic cleansing before MRI colonography. Lancet. 1999;354:835–836.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lauenstein TC, Holtmann G, Schoenfelder D, et al. MR Colonography without colonic cleansing: a new strategy to improve patient acceptance. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:823–827.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinner S, Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, et al. MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients’ acceptance in a screening population. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2286–289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Achiam MP, Chabanova E, Løgager VB, et al. MR colonography with fecal tagging: barium vs. barium ferumoxsil. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:576–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Achiam MP, Løgager VB, Chabanova E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MR colonography with fecal tagging. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(4):483–490 (PMID: 18452023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Florie J, van Gelder RE, Haberkorn B, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography with limited bowel preparation: a comparison of three strategies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25:766–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kinner S, Lauenstein TC (b) MR colonography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:377–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Doshi T, Rusinak DJ, Halvorsen RA, Rockey DC, Dachman AH. Retrospective analysis of sources of error in a large CTC clinical trial. Radiology 2007; 244:165–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kay CL, Kulling D, Hawes RH, et al. Virtual endoscopy—comparison with colonoscopy in the detection of space-occupying lesions of the colon. Endoscopy. 2000;32:226–232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Burling D. CT colonography standards. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:272–278.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D, et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology. 2006;238:143–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kerker J, Albes G, Roer N, et al. MR-colonography in hospitalized patients: feasibility and sensitivity. Z Gastroenterol. 2008;46:339–343.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Saar B, Gschossmann JM, Bonel HM, et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Invest Radiol. 2008;43:580–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lomas DJ, Sood RR, Graves MJ, et al. Colon carcinoma: MR imaging with CO2 enema – pilot study. Radiology. 2001;219:558–562.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Leung WK, Lam WW, Wu JC, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:102–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sumanac K, Zealley I, Fox BM, et al. Minimizing postcolonoscopy abdominal pain by using CO2 insufflation: a prospective, randomized, double blind, controlled trial evaluating a new commercially available CO2 delivery system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:190–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rogalla P, Lembcke A, Ruckert JC, et al. Spasmolysis at CT colonography: butyl scopolamine versus glucagon. Radiology. 2005;236:184–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, et al. Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology. 2000;216:383–388.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J, et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1100–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Haykir R, Karakose S, Karabacakoglu A, et al. Three dimensional MR and axial CT colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for detection of colon pathologies. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:2345–2350.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ajaj W, Ruehm SG, Lauenstein T, et al. Dark-lumen magnetic resonance colonography in patients with suspected sigmoid diverticulitis: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:2316–2322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marije P. van der Paardt

Authors
  1. Marije P. van der Paardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank. M. Zijta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaap. Stoker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marije P. van der Paardt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Radiology, MC 2026, University of Chicago, S. Maryland Ave. 5841, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA

    Abraham H. Dachman

  2. , Radiological, Oncological, and Pathologi, Sapienza , Università di Roma, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy

    Andrea Laghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Paardt, M.P., Zijta, F.M., Stoker, J. (2011). Magnetic Resonance Colonography. In: Dachman, A., Laghi, A. (eds) Atlas of Virtual Colonoscopy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5852-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5851-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-5852-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation