Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 407–416 | Cite as

Detection of inflammatory bowel disease: diagnostic performance of cross-sectional imaging modalities

  • Karin HorsthuisEmail author
  • Pieter C. F. Stokkers
  • Jaap Stoker
Open Access
Update

Abstract

Different cross-sectional imaging techniques can be used as a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this report the diagnostic performances of ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the detection of IBD and the evaluation of known IBD are described, together with a short update on patient preparation and imaging technique of the respective modalities discussed.

Keywords

Inflammatory bowel disease Ultrasonography Magnetic Resonance Imaging Computed Tomography Diagnostic performance 

Introduction

Chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) consists of two main subtypes, i.e., Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). During the last decades, the incidence of CD has continued to increase worldwide, reaching incidence rates ranging from 3.1 to 14.6/100,000 in North America and from 0.7 to 9.8/100,000 in Europe [1]. Incidence rates of UC differ greatly between studies and regions, varying from 1.5 to 24.5 per 100,000 person-years [1, 2].

Crohn’s disease can be localized in any part of the gastrointestinal tract, although the location of predilection is the terminal ileum, involvement of the terminal ileum is observed in 90% of the patients with small-intestinal CD, who in turn constitute 30–40% of all CD patients. In 40–55% of the patients both ileum and colon are affected, while in a minority (15–25%) only a colonic localization is observed.

The earliest change caused by CD occurs in the mucosa and submucosa and consists of hyperemia and edema. Tiny aphthoid or superficial ulcerations can be seen when disease progresses. In more severe disease, the disease extends transmurally with sometimes serosal involvement. In this stage, mucosal ulcerations merge to form deep longitudinal and transverse ulcerations while bowel wall thickening and narrowing of the bowel lumen can be observed due to significant mucosal edema and associated bowel spasms. In long-standing disease, chronic obstruction can develop due to scarring, luminal narrowing, and stricture formation. Extramural manifestations of CD are fistulas, abscesses, adhesions, creeping fat, and enlargement of lymph nodes.

Ulcerative colitis exclusively affects the colon with a predictable way of spreading from distal to proximal in a continuous manner; the rectum is often involved, but rectal sparing can be observed. In previous cases, small superficial erosions can be seen, whereas in more severe disease these ulcerations can be quite large. However, only in very severe disease they penetrate the muscularis layer. The mucosa is thickened because of round-cell infiltration in the lamina propria. In chronic UC, a marked hypertrophy of muscularis mucosae can be seen, causing contraction, shortening, and narrowing of the involved colon. The submucosa becomes thickened because of the deposition of fat or, in acute or subacute cases, edema [3, 4].

Diagnostic modalities

The gold standard examination for the small bowel traditionally has been small bowel barium examination (SBE), either by using an enteroclysis technique or by using small-bowel follow-through [5, 6]. SBE is invasive and burdensome, and requires an extensive bowel preparation (dietary restrictions, use of laxatives). Moreover, in the young population of CD patients, the ionizing radiation required for SBE limits the use of this technique for follow-up of disease.

The advent of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) has increased the diagnostic possibilities. For VCE a capsule is swallowed after a fasting period of up to 12 h and is propelled through the bowel by peristalsis. Thus, the mucosal surface of the small bowel can be depicted in detail (Fig. 1). However, with VCE there is no facility to increase visibility by insufflation of air or by tissue rinsing. Moreover, tissue sampling and therapeutic interventions are not possible. The use of VCE is contraindicated in patients with (suspicion of) obstruction due to the risk of capsule retention.
Fig. 1.

VCE image of a 14-year-old male patient with known CD. VCE was performed as small-bowel disease was suspected. Image shows severe inflammation of the small bowel with a stenosis.

For DBE, a high-resolution video-endoscope with a flexible overtube is used. By alternately inflating and deflating two balloons attached to the overtube and endoscope the small bowel is threaded on the overtube. Both an oral and an anal approach are possible; for the oral approach no specific preparation is required, although patients are asked to fast for at least 6 h before the procedure. If the anal approach is used, bowel cleansing such as is employed for traditional colonoscopy is used. By using both the anal and oral approach, DBE allows visualization of the entire small bowel, with the possibility of obtaining tissue for analysis and the added advantage of the possibility of endoscopic therapy (e.g. dilatation of a stricture, cauterization of a bleeding site). For DBE conscious sedation is a necessity.

Traditionally, ileocolonoscopy (CS) with tissue sampling is considered to be the most valuable tool for diagnosis and follow-up of disease in the colon and terminal ileum [5, 7]. As UC solely affects the mucosa of the colon, CS would suffice for diagnosis of disease and evaluation of disease activity and extent. However, when strictures are present as a complication of disease, these might hamper execution of a complete examination, while in severe attacks of UC CS is relatively contra-indicated due to the increased risk of bleeding or perforation. For ileocolonic localizations of CD CS would suffice as well, although inspection of the terminal ileum is reported to fail in up to 27.8% of examinations [8, 9].

Cross-sectional imaging modalities

The trans- and extramural extent of IBD cannot be visualized with any of the abovementioned techniques. Much research has been directed toward the potential of cross-sectional imaging modalities for the diagnosis and evaluation of IBD as with these techniques the bowel lumen, the bowel wall and the extra-intestinal abdomen including the visceral fat, the lymph nodes and the vascular structures feeding and draining the bowel can be visualized. An added advantage of these techniques is the fact that they are limitedly to non-invasive.

Ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are often used for the evaluation of the abdomen. While in the USA the technique of choice is CT, in Europe the focus is more on MRI and US. This inclination is reflected by the majority of CT studies on IBD patients originating from the USA, while the majority of published studies on MRI and US has been conducted in Europe.

Ultrasonography

Patient preparation and US technique

Patients are usually asked to fast for several hours before the scan to diminish peristaltic movements and the amount of intraluminal air; in the available literature the minimum fasting time described is 4 h, whereas overnight fasting is also sometimes employed. Usually, no additional dietary or cleansing measures are taken. Due to the limited patient preparation necessary and the non-invasive nature of this examination, US can be considered to be a relatively patient-friendly and straightforward examination.

Ultrasonography is mostly performed without the use of enteral contrast medium. In two recent studies, the effect of enteral contrast medium for diagnosis of IBD of the small bowel was investigated; higher sensitivity values were obtained when enteral contrast medium had been administered [10, 11]. In both studies the additional value of enteral contrast medium permitted detection of jejunal lesions that had escaped detection with conventional US. For colonic IBD, use of enteral contrast medium also increased accuracy [12, 13].

High-frequency transducers are preferred, such as 7.5 MHz [13, 14, 15, 16].

The use of Doppler-US might provide helpful additional information on IBD, particularly on the degree of disease activity. Using Doppler-US the vascularity of the bowel wall can be assessed according to the intensity of color signals and/or by the analysis of Doppler curves (measurement of resistive index) obtained from vessels detected within the bowel wall. Measurement of flow parameters of the superior and inferior mesenteric arteries can also be performed.

Imaging criteria

The criterion that is most extensively used for the diagnosis of CD is bowel wall thickening. In most studies, the bowel wall is considered to be thickened when thickness exceeds 3 mm (Fig. 2). In a meta-analysis conducted by Fraquelli et al. [17] concerning US in CD the respective diagnostic accuracies of different cut-off values were compared; sensitivity for diagnosis of CD decreased using a cut-off value of 4 mm instead of 3 mm (from 88% to 75%), but specificity increased slightly (from 93% to 97%). Other features that are considered characteristic of CD on US are the presence of a stiff bowel wall, modification or disappearance of bowel wall stratification, presence of deep ulcers (seen as interruption of the submucosal hyperechoic rim by a hypoechoic tract), a reduction of peristalsis and loss of haustration in the colon. Extramural findings are fibrofatty proliferation, enlarged lymph nodes, and/or the presence of an abscess or fistula.
Fig. 2.

A 14-year female patient with known CD and intermittent abdominal pain. US image shows the thickened wall of the terminal ileum (arrowheads) with some infiltration of the perivisceral fat.

Bowel wall thickening is considered to be a characteristic feature of UC as well. Mural stratification is preserved in most UC patients due to the superficial pattern of inflammation. This feature can be used to differentiate between CD and UC, although this was not regarded sufficient for differentiation in all studies on this topic [12, 13]. In long-standing UC a tubular appearance of the colon and loss of haustration can be seen.

Diagnostic accuracy of US

Most studies regarding diagnostic accuracy of US for diagnosis and follow-up of IBD have been conducted in the last decade. Although reported sensitivity and specificity values are high, with the state-of-the-art equipment diagnostic accuracy could possibly be higher than that previously reported.

In the hands of an experienced radiologist, US can be very accurate for the detection of IBD. Reported sensitivity values of US for the detection of IBD in patients with suspected disease vary from 76% to 92% [15, 18, 19]; specificity values are also high. In patients with proven IBD, reported sensitivity values for US are higher, probably reflecting a higher index of suspicion [10, 20]. Reported segmental sensitivity values are lower; these are below 78%, even if gray-scale US is combined with power Doppler [21, 22]. Regarding the detection of extramural complications, fistulas and abscesses can be identified accurately on US [23, 24] (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3.

A 25-year-old female patient with known CD of the terminal ileum. A US image shows a large abscess (arrowheads) that was located ventrally and cranially of the bladder. B US image shows a fistula (arrowheads) that originated from the abscess.

Although many US studies have been carried out, most concerned either CD patients or both CD and UC patients, and reported accuracy values are usually applicable for both subgroups of disease. Although in the study by Limberg and Osswald [13] separate accuracy values are provided for US and CD, it is not clear from these data if accuracy values were obtained from post hoc separation of data. To our knowledge, as of yet no prospective study has been performed with predetermined imaging parameters to differentiate between CD and UC.

Although US can be used for the assessment of both small bowel and colon, disease localized in the duodenum and jejunum is often missed [18, 19, 25]. Moreover, the rectum and distal sigmoid cannot be visualized accurately due to their pelvic location. This makes US less suitable for the assessment of UC.

Doppler US has been proved useful in assessing whether IBD is in an active phase or in remission; significant correlations were found between Doppler parameters and disease activity, both in UC [26] and in CD [27]. However, the only distinction made was between active and inactive disease, meaning no conclusions can be drawn about the severity of active disease from these data. As of yet, there is no standardized scale to determine the degree of disease activity on US, neither for CD nor for UC.

The spatial resolution of US is not high enough to permit the detection of superficial pathology, making this modality less suitable for the diagnosis of early diseases when compared with SBE. Although SBE can reportedly be highly accurate when performed by skilled radiologists [28, 29], compared with VCE or DBE its sensitivity is low [30]. In this regard, comparison between US and VCE and/or DBE might be very interesting in order to determine the accuracy of US for small lesions and accuracy for bowel segments that are difficult to access. To our knowledge, no comparative studies have been performed as of yet.

Computed tomography

Patient preparation

Patients are usually asked to fast for several hours before the scan to diminish peristaltic movements [31, 32, 33]. In addition, in some institutions a bowel-cleansing regimen is applied, as a rule consisting of mild laxatives. Dietary restrictions are also often applicable. Although with this bowel preparation residual feces are usually present to some degree, the mural presentation of disease enables the identification of disease even if the bowel wall is partly obscured.

There is consensus as to the indispensability of enteral contrast medium for an abdominal CT examination for IBD. The contrast medium of choice should be neutral (meaning an attenuation value comparable with water), as a neutral contrast medium allows optimal distinction between bowel wall and lumen. While in some institutions enteral contrast medium is administered orally (CT enterography), in other institutions controlled distention is achieved by inflow of contrast medium through a nasojejunal catheter (CT-enteroclysis). Although by some authors CT-enteroclysis is propagated as the controlled infusion provides a more consistent distention of the small bowel than CT-enterography, especially of the jejunum [34], others report that with the right choice of contrast medium and correct timing of intake excellent distention of all small bowel loops can be obtained after the oral administration of contrast medium [31, 33]. In only one small study, CT enteroclysis and CT enterography were compared, but both the degree of luminal distention and the diagnostic accuracy did not show significant differences [35].

Imaging technique

Technical developments have allowed the widespread use of multi-slice scanners. With these scanners volumes can be scanned in a very short breath hold, allowing the acquisition of isotropic voxels for multiplanar reformatting. Thin slices should be used to permit the detection of subtle pathology.

Before CT enterography sometimes metoclopramide is given to increase gastric emptying and peristaltic movements of the small bowel [31]. The use of antiperistaltic drugs is not standard. In a recently published update on CT enteroclysis, Rajesh and Maglinte [32] report that in their institution all patients undergoing CT enteroclysis receive conscious sedation. Although this most probably decreases patient discomfort to a large degree, this can considerably increase the in-hospital time for patients as they will have to stay in a recovery unit after the procedure until the anesthetic effects have worn off.

Intravenous contrast medium should be administered for a comprehensive CT examination of the bowel. In a recent study, the optimal timing of scanning after the administration of intravenous contrast medium was determined; Schindera et al. [36] found that peak mural enhancement of normal small-bowel wall occurs on average about 50 s after contrast administration or 14 s after peak aortic enhancement.

Imaging criteria

The main feature considered indicative of both CD and UC is bowel wall thickening. Whereas in earlier studies cut-off values for pathological bowel wall thickening have varied between 2.5 mm and 10 mm, in recent publications of experts in the field bowel wall thickness exceeding 3 mm is described as pathological [31, 33] (Fig. 4). Mural thickening is not seen in early superficial disease, precluding CT from being a first-line examination for (suspicion of) superficial disease.
Fig. 4.

A 60-year old female patient who underwent CT enterography for suspected bowel obstruction. Just 1 month earlier at ileocolonoscopy CD of the terminal ileum was discovered; the terminal ileum was not intubated because of the stenosis. Axial image shows the severely thickened bowel wall of the ileum (arrowheads) with only a pinpoint bowel lumen remaining.

Increased bowel wall enhancement after the administration of intravenous contrast medium is also considered as an indicative of active disease [37, 38, 39]. Whereas in earlier studies the only distinction regarding enhancement was between pathological enhancement (i.e., hyper-enhancement) and normally enhancing bowel walls, in a recent publication the degree of mural enhancement was found to correlate with disease activity [38].

Bowel wall enhancement can be transmural, but also layered. This layered enhancement pattern, which is represented by a thickened intestinal wall with a middle layer of low attenuation surrounded on each side by layers of higher attenuation, has been termed the target sign; this is due to the presence of edema or the deposition of fat in the submucosa.

Diagnostic accuracy of CT

The accuracy of CT has mainly been investigated for small-bowel disease. In suspected CD sensitivity was 83% when compared with SBE [40]. When compared with ileoscopy sensitivity values vary from 80% to 88% [34, 35, 41]. Segmental sensitivity of CT was somewhat lower (71.8%) in a study by Molnar et al. [42], comparing CT with SBE and CS.

Superficial lesions (such as aphthoid lesions) are not accurately visualized on CT, making CT less suitable as a first-line examination for the suspicion of mild disease. This was already evident from studies comparing CT with CS and/or SBE, but in a recent meta-analysis comparing CT with VCE was shown that the yield of CT compared with the yield of CE was 30% vs. 69% [43]. No comparative studies have been published regarding CT vs. DBE.

Extramural complications are well shown on CT, although the lower contrast resolution of CT makes this modality less suitable for the detection of fistulas and abscesses than MRI in patients with CD [44] (Fig. 5). In a recent study, the relationship between increased attenuation of perivisceral fat and disease activity was determined; one of the most specific markers of active disease was increased attenuation in the perivisceral fat [37].
Fig. 5.

A 25-year-old female patient with known CD of the terminal ileum (same patient as pictured in Fig. 3). A CT-scan was performed to determine involvement of the small bowel. A Coronal image shows the abscess (arrowheads). B Axial image again shows the abscess again (arrowheads). C Coronal image shows the fistula (arrowhead).

Hardly any studies have focused on the accuracy of CT colonography for the detection of ileocolonic IBD. This is possibly partly due to the fact that for the rectal administration of contrast medium the rectum is obscured by the rectal catheter, precluding diagnosis of rectal IBD, specifically UC. It does seem clear that CTC is unable to detect ulcerative lesions; even diffuse inflammation with large ulcerations can be missed. CTC might however be useful in patients with colonic stenosis or narrowing [45, 46].

Magnetic resonance imaging

Patient preparation

While in some studies on MRI a period of several hours of fasting was deemed sufficient, in others full bowel cleansing was performed, as the reference standard, (i.e., CS) was performed on the same day. There is no consensus yet as to what constitutes the optimal bowel preparation for MRI. However, as a limited bowel preparation does not seem to negatively affect accuracy, it might be sufficient to limit the bowel preparation to a fasting period taking into account the patient-friendliness of the respective preparations.

Luminal distention by means of use of enteral contrast medium is indispensable for an adequate evaluation of the bowel as collapsed bowel can hide or mimic disease. As was the case with CT, for MRI of the small bowel contrast medium is either administrated by mouth or by enteroclysis. An advantage of MR enteroclysis over MR enterography is the fact that it allows fluoroscopic monitoring of the inflow of contrast medium and thereby provides functional information on bowel distensibility. An advantage of MR enterography is the fact that it can be considered more patient-friendly and also that no ionizing radiation is necessary. To our knowledge, only one study has been carried out in which both methods of contrast medium administration were compared. In this study by Schreyer et al. [47] all patients (n = 21) underwent both MRI enterography and MRI enteroclysis; no difference in accuracy compared with SBE was noted by the investigators (Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.

A A 38-year-old female with complaints of vomiting and an iron-deficiency anemia who was suspected of CD and underwent MRI-enteroclysis to evaluate the small bowel. Coronal TrueFISP image shows good distention of jejunal bowel loops after controlled infusion of contrast medium. B A 12-year-old male patient with known CD who underwent MR enterography for the evaluation of the small bowel. Coronal TrueFISP image shows good distention of jejunal bowel loops after oral administration of contrast medium.

Whereas for MR enteroclysis mostly a methylcellulose suspension is used, for MR enterography many different contrast media have been tested. The main subdivision is between positive, negative, and biphasic contrast media. A biphasic contrast medium performs best for the identification of pathology on both T2-and T1-weighted sequences as adequate delineation between hypointense bowel wall and hyperintense lumen is seen on T2-weighted sequences while on T1-weighted images the enhancing bowel wall can be easily discriminated from the hypointense lumen. An artificial sugar-solution (mannitol or sorbitol) has been shown to cause good distention of small bowel loops with negligible side effects [48, 49].

Imaging technique

Mostly, both T2-weighted and T1-weighted sequences are used for the MRI evaluation of the bowel. On T2-weighted images the bowel wall can be appreciated and bowel wall stratification—if present—can be well apprehended. As feces can show bright signal intensity on T1-weighted sequences, it is important to perform a pre-contrast T1-weighted sequence in order to be able to determine whether high signal intensity was already present before intravenous contrast administration, indicating the presence of stool.

Another sequence that is propagated by many authors is the TrueFISp sequence, a sequence that is insensitive to motion and breathing artifacts. This sequence, that makes use of a T2/T1 ratio, adequately delineates the bowel wall and the mesentery, allowing adequate assessment of disease (Fig. 7). When combining a T2-weighted sequence or TrueFISP sequence and a T1-weighted sequence, a comprehensive MRI examination can be carried out in less than 30 min.
Fig. 7.

A 18-year-old female patient with known CD. MRI-enterography was performed for suspicion of active CD of the neoterminal ileum. A Coronal TrueFISp image shows enlarged mesenteric lymph nodes (arrowheads). B Coronal TrueFISP image shows thickened bowel wall of the neoterminal ileum (arrowheads).

Imaging criteria

A bowel wall thickness exceeding 3 mm should be considered as an indicative of disease. Besides bowel wall thickening the most important criterion indicative of active IBD is pathological bowel wall enhancement after the administration of intravenous gadolinium. Bowel wall enhancement can always be seen as the bowel is a highly vascularized structure. However, in active IBD increased enhancement can be observed, due to the increased vascularization and the increased capillary leakage of the affected tissue (Fig. 8). In CD it has been hypothesized that the degree of enhancement correlates with the degree of disease severity, but this statement has not been extensively corroborated [50, 51, 52, 53].
Fig. 8.

A 12-year-old male patient with known CD who underwent MR-enterography for the evaluation of the small bowel (same patient depicted in Fig. 6b). Axial T1-weighted image shows pathological enhancement of thickened small-bowel loops after administration of intravenous contrast medium (arrowheads). Approximately, 1 m of small bowel (terminal jejunum, proximal ileum) was shown to be affected.

Bowel wall stratification can be observed on T2-weighted images as a bright line within the two dark stripes of the mucosal and muscularis propria layers, likely related to the presence of fat or edema in the submucosal layer. On fat-suppressed T2-weighted images it is possible to determine the nature of the bright signal as a persistent bright signal suggests the presence of edema, whereas complete suppression of the submucosal signal suggests fat infiltration and quiescent disease [54].

Extramural manifestations of disease that can be identified on MRI are fistulas, abscesses, fibrofatty proliferation, and enlarged lymph nodes.

Diagnostic accuracy

The accuracy of MRI of the small bowel has been extensively investigated. In many European institutions, conventional enteroclysis is increasingly being replaced by MRI enteroclysis or MRI enterography as MRI has proved to be highly accurate in both the detection of disease in patients with known IBD as in patients in whom IBD of the small bowel was suspected [52, 55, 56]. However, the studies that have been performed were mostly small and concerned selected populations with either a high suspicion of disease or known CD of the small bowel. Larger studies including the full spectrum of disease activity should be conducted.

As was the case with CT and US, MRI is not suitable for the detection of superficial disease due to the limited spatial resolution. This finding is corroborated by a study comparing MRI and VCE in patients with CD [57]. Significantly more inflammatory lesions were detected with VCE in the jejunum and partly in the ileum of patients with CD. However, these findings had no effect on the therapeutic approach of the individual patients. The accuracy of MRI has not been compared with DBE as of yet.

As mentioned before, MRI can be used for the evaluation of extramural disease. Due to the high contrast resolution abscesses are very conspicuous on T1-weighed fat suppressed images after the administration of intravenous Gadolinium. MRI is also very sensitive for the detection of fistulas [47, 52, 58] (Fig. 9).
Fig. 9.

A 25-year-old female patient with known CD of the terminal ileum (same patient as pictured in Figs. 3 and 5). A Coronal T1-weighted image clearly shows the abscess (arrowheads) that was also depicted on US and CT. B Coronal T1-weighted image showing a fistula

In recent years, the accuracy of MRI for the detection of ileocolonic IBD has been investigated by means of MRI colonography. After administration of rectal contrast medium the colon (and sometimes the terminal ileum) was assessed for disease. Conflicting results were reported: while in one study high accuracy values were reported [59], in others segmental sensitivity values were around 32% [60, 61].

Regarding the accuracy of MRI in differentiation between CD and UC conflicting results have been reported; while some authors report that based on the location of inflammatory changes, the degree of involvement, the continuity or discontinuity of disease, and the presence of complications it was possible to differentiate between CD and UC [51, 62], others report a limited value in differentiation of disease [63].

Theoretically, a whole-bowel examination would be possible with MRI, by the administration of contrast medium orally and rectally. This has been attempted [64, 65] and was deemed feasible. More research is needed to establish the diagnostic value of this combined approach. At the moment, MRI colonography does not seem to be able to replace CS.

Discussion

Compared with conventional imaging methods, CT, US, and MRI are accurate methods for the detection of IBD of the small bowel, both in patients suspected of disease as in patients with known IBD. Although subtle lesions cannot be depicted with any of these modalities, clinically more relevant findings can be accurately depicted. Therefore, cross-sectional imaging should be incorporated in a comprehensive clinical evaluation of suspected IBD and for follow-up of CD. The exact role cross-sectional imaging techniques can play for follow-up in UC should be more extensively studied.

As US is easily accessible, widely available, and inexpensive, it is recommended to use abdominal US as first-line modality in patients with suspected IBD of the small bowel. MR enterography would be a good alternative, especially as the assessment of the degree of disease activity can be better performed on MRI than on US. Although CT enterography is a very accurate technique and is used in many institutions, its role in IBD is limited by the ionizing radiation needed, especially due to the repetitive use for follow-up in often young individuals. If possible, it might be advisable to reserve this technique for patients in whom imaging is needed at very short notice as CT enterography can be performed very fast and is readily available.

Although VCE has shown to be more accurate in depicting subtle lesions in the small bowel than MRI or CT, its role should be limited as of yet as the true benefit of VCE is not clear yet. As there are presently no standardized criteria for the diagnosis of CD with VCE, definitions with regard to what constitutes a positive finding might differ between studies. Moreover, the clinical significance of finding a single mucosal break or a few superficial aphthous lesions is not clear yet. Also, specificity and positive predictive values for VCE have not been established. At this time, it might be good to reserve VCE as a second-line modality if cross-sectional imaging has not shown abnormalities but the suspicion of disease remains standing despite these negative findings.

References

  1. 1.
    Loftus EV Jr (2004) Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease: incidence, prevalence, and environmental influences. Gastroenterology 126:1504–1517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farrokhyar F, Swarbrick ET, Irvine EJ (2001) A critical review of epidemiological studies in inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 36:2–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stenson WF (2004) Inflammatory bowel disease, Chap. 142 (on-line edition). In: Goldman L, Aussiello D, (eds). Cecil textbook of medicine, 22nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. SaunderGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman S, Blumberg RS (2005) Inflammatory bowel disease, Chap. 172 (on-line edition). In: Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Longo DL, Braunwald E, Hauser SL, Jameson JL, (eds). Harrison’s principles of internal medicine, 16th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stange EF, Travis SP, Vermeire S, et al. (2006) European evidence based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: definitions and diagnosis. Gut 55(Suppl 1):i1–i15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maglinte DD, Sandrasegaran K, Tann M (2006) Advances in alimentary tract imaging. World J Gastroenterol 12:3139–3145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hommes DW, van Deventer SJ (2004) Endoscopy in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 126:1561–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kundrotas LW, Clement DJ, Kubik CM, et al. (1994) A prospective evaluation of successful terminal ileum intubation during routine colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 40:544–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall JB, Barthel JS (1993) The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990s. Gastrointest Endosc 39:518–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pallotta N, Tomei E, Viscido A, et al. (2005) Small intestine contrast ultrasonography: an alternative to radiology in the assessment of small bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11:146–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M, et al. (2004) Oral contrast enhanced bowel ultrasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, X ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy. Gut 53:1652–1657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bru C, Sans M, Defelitto MM, et al. (2001) Hydrocolonic sonography for evaluating inflammatory bowel disease. AJR 177:99–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Limberg B, Osswald B (1994) Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease by hydrocolonic sonography. Am J Gastroenterol 89:1051–1057PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miao YM, Koh DM, Amin Z, et al. (2002) Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of active bowel segments in Crohn’s disease. Clin Radiol 57:913–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rispo A, Imbriaco M, Celentano L, et al. (2005) Noninvasive diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: combined use of bowel sonography and Tc-99m-HMPAO leukocyte scintigraphy. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11:376–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andreoli A, Cerro P, Falasco G, et al. (1998) Role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of postsurgical recurrence of Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 93:1117–1121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fraquelli M, Colli A, Casazza G, et al. (2005) Role of US in detection of Crohn disease: meta-analysis. Radiology 236:95–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollerbach S, Geissler A, Schiegl H, et al. (1998) The accuracy of abdominal ultrasound in the assessment of bowel disorders. Scand J Gastroenterol 33:1201–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parente F, Greco S, Motelni M, et al. (2003) Role of early ultrasound in detecting inflammatory disorders and identifying their anatomical location within the bowel. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 18:1009–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calabrese E, La Seta F, Buccellato A, et al. (2005) Crohn’s disease: a comparative prospective study of transabdominal ultrasonography, small intestine contrast ultrasonography, and small bowel enema. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11:139–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neye H, Voderholzer W, Rickes S, et al. (2004) Evaluation of criteria for the activity of Crohn’s disease by power Doppler sonography. Dig Dis 22:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pradel JA, David XR, Taourel P, et al. (1997) Sonographic assessment of the normal and abnormal bowel wall in nondiverticular ileitis and colitis. Abdom Imaging 22:167–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gasche C, Moser G, Turetschek K, et al. (1999) Transabdominal bowel sonography for the detection of intestinal complications in Crohn’s disease. Gut 44:112–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maconi G, Sampietro GM, Parente F, et al. (2003) Contrast radiology, computed tomography and ultrasonography in detecting internal fistulas and intra-abdominal abscesses in Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol 98(7):1545–1555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parente F, Maconi G, Bollani S, et al. (2002) Bowel ultrasound in assessment of Crohn’s disease and detection of related small bowel strictures: a prospective comparative study versus x ray and intraoperative findings. Gut 50:490–495PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sigirci A, Baysal T, Kutlu R, et al. (2001) Doppler sonography of the inferior and superior mesenteric arteries in ulcerative colitis. J Clin Ultrasound 29:130–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spalinger J, Patriquin H, Miron MC, et al. (2000) Doppler US in patients with Crohn disease: vessel density in the diseased bowel reflects disease activity. Radiology 217:787–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maglinte DD, Chernish SM, Kelvin FM, et al. (1992) Crohn disease of the small intestine: accuracy and relevance of enteroclysis. Radiology 184:541–545PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cirillo LC, Camera L, Della Noce M, et al. (2000) Accuracy of enteroclysis in Crohn’s disease of the small bowel: a retrospective study. Eur Radiol 10:1894–1898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marmo R, Rotondano G, Piscopo R, et al. (2005) Meta-analysis: capsule enteroscopy vs. conventional modalities in diagnosis of small bowel diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 22:595–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, et al. (2006) CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 26:641–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajesh A, Maglinte DDT (2006) Multisclice CT enteroclysis: technique and clinical applications. Clin Radiol 61:31–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Macari M, Megibow AJ, Balthazar EJ (2007) A pattern approach to the abnormal small bowel: observations at MDCT and CT enterography. AJR 188:1344–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mazzeo S, Caramella D, Battolla L, et al. (2001) Crohn disease of the small bowel: spiral CT evaluation after oral hyperhydration with isotonic solution. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:612–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, et al. (2003) Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: noninvasive peroral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy–feasibility study. Radiology 229:275–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schindera ST, Nelson RC, DeLong DM, et al. (2007) Multi-detector row CT pf he small bowel: peak enhancement temporal window- initial experience. Radiology 243:438–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Booya F, Fletcher JG, Huprich JE, et al. (2006) Active Crohn disease: CT findings and interobserver agreement for enteric phase CT enterography. Radiology 241:787–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, et al. (2006) Crohn disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast-enhanced CT enterography—correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 238:505–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thoeni RF, Cello JP (2006) CT imaging of colitis. Radiology 240:623–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Guidi L, et al. (2006) Multidetector CT enteroclysis versus barium enteroclysis with methylcellulose in patients with suspected small bowel disease. Eur Radiol 16:1527–1536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hassan C, Cerro P, Zullo A, Spina C, et al. (2003) Computed tomography enteroclysis in comparison with ileoscopy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Int J Colorect Dis 18:121–125Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Molnar T, Papos M, Gyulai C, et al. (2001) Clinical value of technetium-99m-HMPAO-labeled leukocyte scintigraphy and spiral computed tomography in active Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 96:1517–1521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI (2006) A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 101:954–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Koelbel G, Schmiedl U, Majer MC, et al. (1989) Diagnosis of fistulae and sinus tracts in patients with Crohn disease: value of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 152:999–1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ota Y, Matsui T, Ono H, et al. (2003) Value of virtual computed tomographic colonography for Crohn’s colitis: comparison with endoscopy and barium enema. Abdom Imaging 28:778–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Biancone L, Fiori R, Tosti C, et al. (2003) Virtual colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy for stricturing postoperative recurrence in Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 9:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schreyer AG, Geissler A, Albrich H, et al. (2004) Abdominal MRI after enteroclysis or with oral contrast in patients with suspected or proven Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:491–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Schneemann H, et al. (2004) Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol 14:458–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, et al. (2003) Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 228:279–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shoenut JP, Semelka RC, Silverman R, et al. (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging in inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 17:73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shoenut JP, Semelka RC, Magro CM, et al. (1994) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy in distinguishing the type and severity of inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 19:31–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A, et al. (2005) 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 238:517–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Florie J, Horsthuis K, Hommes DW, et al. (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging compared with ileocolonoscopy in evaluating disease severity in Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:1221–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Maccioni F, Colaiacomo C, Parlanti S (2005) Ulcerative colitis: value of MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 30:584–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J, et al. (2000) Small-bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJ, et al. (2001) MR imaging evaluation of the activity of Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1325–1332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Golder SK, Schreyer AG, Endlicher E, et al. (2006) Comparison of capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance (MR) enteroclysis in suspected small bowel disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 21:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Holzknecht N, Helmberger T, Herrmann K, et al. (2003) MRI in Crohn’s disease after transduodenal contrast administration using negative oral MRI contrast media [Article in German]. Radiologe 43:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ajaj WM, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity. Gut 54:257–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Langhorst J, Kuhle CA, Ajaj W, et al. (2007) MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13; [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Schreyer AG, Rath HC, Kikinis R, et al. (2005) Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the assessment of intestinal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a feasibility study. Gut 54:250–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Darbari A, Sena L, Argani P, et al. (2004) Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful radiological tool in diagnosing pediatric IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 10:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Durno CA, Sherman P, Williams T, et al. (2000) Magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the type and severity of pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 30:170–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schreyer AG, Golder S, Scheibl K, et al. (2005) Dark lumen magnetic resonance enteroclysis in combination with MRI colonography for whole bowel assessment in patients with Crohn’s disease: first clinical experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis 11:388–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Narin B, Ajaj W, Gohde S, et al. (2004) Combined small and large bowel MR imaging in patients with Crohn’s disease: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 14:1535–1542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karin Horsthuis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pieter C. F. Stokkers
    • 2
  • Jaap Stoker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations