Abstract
MR enterography is increasingly being recognized as an imaging gold standard in the detection and staging of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Its biggest advantage as compared with CT enterography is the absence of ionizing radiation. This is vital in this patient group who may go on to have multiple imaging evaluations during the course of their disease and has prompted increasing MRI referrals in an era where radiation sequelae are in the forefront of public consciousness. Moreover its non-invasive nature, high contrast resolution, multi-planar capability and lack of requirement for iodinated contrast media to provide high quality and reproducible imaging of the small bowel confer a distinct advantage over other modalities that are used to evaluate the bowel. Moreover its ability to provide functional information by utilization of MR motility sequences and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) are unique.
There has been much work on assessing disease activity on MRI and using it as a tool to guide patient management.
This review will focus on the benefits and disadvantages of MR enterography and provide specific examples of protocols that may be used to assess the small and large bowel. These protocols will need to be tailored to address the clinical areas of concern. The benefits and limitation of differing categories of oral contrast media will also be discussed in some detail, as will characteristic imaging findings in patients with IBD involving both the large and small bowel.
An overall review of the performance characteristics as compared with conventional imaging and endoscopic techniques will be provided. The utility of MR scoring systems as an objective method for quantification of disease activity will be discussed as will the potential impact of DWI in disease evaluation in this patient population.
In the challenging area of perianal disease MRI remains an established gold standard in providing a baseline for depiction of the presence and anatomical extent of disease. It is vital therefore not only in initial management but guiding subsequent therapeutic decision-making particularly in the utilization of immune modulating drugs. The imaging technique, efficacy, classification system and the potential complications of long standing perianal disease will be described.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Loftus CG, Loftus Jr EV, Harmsen WS, et al. Update on the incidence and prevalence of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1940–2000. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13(3):254–61. doi:10.1002/ibd.20029.
Brenner DJ. Medical imaging in the 21st century – getting the best bang for the rad. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(10):943–5. doi:362/10/943 [pii] 10.1056/NEJMe1000802.
Peloquin JM, Pardi DS, Sandborn WJ, et al. Diagnostic ionizing radiation exposure in a population-based cohort of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(8):2015–22. doi:AJG1920 [pii] 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01920.x.
Desmond AN, O’Regan K, Curran C, et al. Crohn’s disease: factors associated with exposure to high levels of diagnostic radiation. Gut. 2008;57(11):1524–9. doi:gut.2008.151415 [pii] 10.1136/gut.2008.151415.
Negaard A, Paulsen V, Sandvik L, et al. A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysis. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(9):2294–301. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0648-4.
Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Gualdi G. Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(3):438–47. doi:10.1007/s00330-007-0763-2.
Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Bennink RJ, Stoker J. Inflammatory bowel disease diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studies. Radiology. 2008;247(1):64–79. doi:247/1/64 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2471070611.
Schreyer AG, Geissler A, Albrich H, et al. Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast in patients with suspected or proven Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(6):491–7. doi:S1542356504001685 [pii].
Siddiki HA, Fidler JL, Fletcher JG, et al. Prospective comparison of state-of-the-art MR enterography and CT enterography in small-bowel Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(1):113–21. doi:193/1/113 [pii] 10.2214/AJR.08.2027.
Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A, et al. Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut. 2005;54(12):1721–7. doi:gut.2005.069427 [pii] 10.1136/gut.2005.069427.
Sinha R, Rajiah P, Murphy P, Hawker P, Sanders S. Utility of high-resolution MR imaging in demonstrating transmural pathologic changes in Crohn disease. Radiographics. 2009;29(6):1847–67. doi:29/6/1847 [pii] 10.1148/rg.296095503.
Sempere GA, Martinez Sanjuan V, Medina Chulia E, et al. MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(6):1829–35. doi:184/6/1829 [pii].
Masselli G, Brizi GM, Parrella A, Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Marano P. Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29(3):326–34. doi:10.1007/s00261-003-0116-9.
Punwani S, Rodriguez-Justo M, Bainbridge A, et al. Mural inflammation in Crohn disease: location-matched histologic validation of MR imaging features. Radiology. 2009;252(3):712–20. doi:radiol.2523082167 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2523082167.
Miao YM, Koh DM, Amin Z, et al. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessmentof active bowel segments in Crohn’s disease. Clin Radiol. 2002;57(10):913–8. doi:S0009926002910597 [pii].
Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A, et al. MR imaging in patients with Crohn disease: value of T2- versus T1-weighted gadolinium-enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral superparamagnetic contrast agent. Radiology. 2006;238(2):517–30. doi:2381040244 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2381040244.
Rieber A, Aschoff A, Nussle K, et al. MRI in the diagnosis of small bowel disease: use of positive and negative oral contrast media in combination with enteroclysis. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(9):1377–82.
Madsen SM, Thomsen HS, Schlichting P, Dorph S, Munkholm P. Evaluation of treatment response in active Crohn’s disease by low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 1999;24(3):232–9.
Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G, Prassopoulos P, Roussomoustakaki M. Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel with MR and conventional enteroclysis: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(6):1017–24. doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2302-8.
Girometti R, Zuiani C, Toso F, et al. MRI scoring system including dynamic motility evaluation in assessing the activity of Crohn’s disease of the terminal ileum. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(2):153–64. doi:S1076-6332(07)00509-0 [pii] 10.1016/j.acra.2007.08.010.
Negaard A, Sandvik L, Berstad AE, et al. MRI of the small bowel with oral contrast or nasojejunal intubation in Crohn’s disease: randomized comparison of patient acceptance. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(1):44–51. doi:788782908 [pii] 10.1080/00365520701494813.
Siddiki H, Fidler J. MR imaging of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69(3):409–17. doi:S0720-048X(08)00636-0 [pii] 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.013.
Florie J, Wasser MN, Arts-Cieslik K, Akkerman EM, Siersema PD, Stoker J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the bowel wall for assessment of disease activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186(5):1384–92. doi:186/5/1384 [pii] 10.2214/AJR.04.1454.
Froehlich JM, Waldherr C, Stoupis C, Erturk SM, Patak MA. MR motility imaging in Crohn’s disease improves lesion detection compared with standard MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(8):1945–51. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1759-x.
Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Radiology. 2005;234(2):452–9. doi:2342032001 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2342032001.
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(2):257–63. doi:54/2/257 [pii] 10.1136/gut.2003.037085.
Langhorst J, Kuhle CA, Ajaj W, et al. MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13(8):1001–8. doi:10.1002/ibd.20140.
Gore RM, Balthazar EJ, Ghahremani GG, Miller FH. CT features of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(1):3–15.
Gore RM. Colonic contour changes in chronic ulcerative colitis: reappraisal of some old concepts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158(1):59–61.
Riddell R. Pathology of idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. In: Kirsner J, editor. Inflammatory bowel disease. WB Saunders: Philadelphia, PA; 2000. p. 427–47.
Rottgen R, Herzog H, Lopez-Haninnen E, Felix R. Bowel wall enhancement in magnetic resonance colonography for assessing activity in Crohn’s disease. Clin Imaging. 2006;30(1):27–31. doi:S0899-7071(05)00174-9 [pii] 10.1016/j.clinimag.2005.07.031.
Ajaj W, Goyen M, Langhorst J, Ruehm SG, Gerken G, Lauenstein TC. MR colonography for the assessment of colonic anastomoses. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(1):101–7. doi:10.1002/jmri.20606.
Stuckle CA, Maleszka A, Kosta P, Kirchner JK, Liermann D, Adamietz IA. Computerized tomography evaluation of local recurrence of operated and adjuvant radiation treated rectal carcinoma. Normal and pathological changes after operation and irradiation of rectal carcinoma in 956 CT examinations. Radiologe. 2001;41(6):491–6.
Sailer J, Peloschek P, Reinisch W, Vogelsang H, Turetschek K, Schima W. Anastomotic recurrence of Crohn’s disease after ileocolic resection: comparison of MR enteroclysis with endoscopy. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(11):2512–21. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1034-6.
Oussalah A, Laurent V, Bruot O, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance without bowel preparation for detecting colonic inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2010;59(8):1056–65. doi:gut.2009.197665 [pii] 10.1136/gut.2009.197665.
Spencer JA, Ward J, Beckingham IJ, Adams C, Ambrose NS. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of perianal fistulas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(3):735–41.
Horsthuis K, Lavini C, Bipat S, Stokkers PC, Stoker J. Perianal Crohn disease: evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging as an indicator of disease activity. Radiology. 2009;251(2):380–7. doi:251/2/380 [pii] 10.1148/radiol.2512072128.
Ng SC, Plamondon S, Gupta A, et al. Prospective evaluation of anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy guided by magnetic resonance imaging for Crohn’s perineal fistulas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(12):2973–86. doi:ajg2009509 [pii] 10.1038/ajg.2009.509.
Schwartz DA, Wiersema MJ, Dudiak KM, et al. A comparison of endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and exam under anesthesia for evaluation of Crohn’s perianal fistulas. Gastroenterology. 2001;121(5):1064–72. doi:S0016508501362248 [pii].
Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, van der Hoop AG, et al. Preoperative MR imaging of anal fistulas: does it really help the surgeon? Radiology. 2001;218(1):75–84.
Ardizzone S, Maconi G, Cassinotti A, Massari A, Porro GB. Imaging of perianal Crohn’s disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39(10):970–8. doi:S1590-8658(07)00464-1 [pii] 10.1016/j.dld.2007.07.155.
Hamilton SR. Colorectal carcinoma in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology. 1985;89(2):398–407. doi:S001650858500227X [pii].
Winkler R, Wittmer A, Heusermann U. Cancer and Crohn’s disease. Z Gastroenterol. 2002;40(8):569–76. doi:10.1055/s-2002-33417.
Lad SV, Haider MA, Brown CJ, McLeod RS. MRI appearance of perianal carcinoma in Crohn’s disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(6):1659–62. doi:10.1002/jmri.21186.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rogalla, P., Chawla, T. (2012). MRI in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. In: Baumgart, D. (eds) Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0998-4_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0998-4_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0997-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0998-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)