La radiologia medica

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 181–195 | Cite as

Assessment of activity of Crohn’s disease of the ileum and large bowel: proposal for a new multiparameter MR enterography score

  • L. Macarini
  • L. P. Stoppino
  • A. Centola
  • S. Muscarella
  • F. Fortunato
  • F. Coppolino
  • N. Della Valle
  • V. Ierardi
  • P. Milillo
  • R. Vinci
Abdominal Radiology / Radiologia Addominale

Abstract

Purpose

We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography (MR-E) in assessing Crohn’s disease (CD) activity by differentiating acute, chronic and remission stages of disease through a quantitative MR-E assessment.

Materials and methods

One hundred patients with a histological diagnosis of CD were studied with MR-E. Intestinal distension was obtained by oral administration of approximately 2 L of a polyethylene glycol solution (PEG). In all cases, the ileum and large bowel were imaged with morphological sequences (heavily T2-weighted single-shot, dual fast-field echo, balanced fast-field echo) and a postcontrast dynamic sequence (T1-weighted high-resolution isotropic volume excitation). Disease activity was assessed according to a multiparameter score (0–8) based on lesion morphology, signal intensity and contrast enhancement. MR-E findings were compared with clinical-laboratory data and disease activity indices [Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI); Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ)]. Multiple regression analysis was performed by correlating MR-E score, CDAI and IBDQ. Frequencies were then compared using the χ2 test.

Results

MR-E identified inactive disease in 9% of cases, chronic disease in 57% and active disease in the remaining 34%. The most frequently involved bowel segment was the terminal ileum (52%). A statistically significant correlation was found between MR-E score and CDAI (R=0.86; p<0.001) and between MR-E score and IBDQ (R=−0.83; p<0.001). The most suggestive parameter for disease activity was layered bowel-wall enhancement, a finding predominantly present in patients with increased CDAI (≥150) and/or local complications (χ2=7.13; p<0.01).

Conclusions

MR-E is a noninvasive and diagnostic imaging modality for CD study and follow-up. The MR-E score proposed in this study proved to be useful in assessing disease severity and monitoring response to treatment.

Keyword

Crohn’s disease MR enterography Disease activity MR enterography score 

Valutazione dell’attività di malattia del morbo di Crohn dell’ileo e dell’intestino crasso: proposta di un nuovo score E-RM multiparametrico

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro lavoro è stato valutare l’accuratezza diagnostica dell’enterografia con risonanza magnetica (E-RM) nella determinazione dell’attività del morbo di Crohn (MC) differenziando gli stati di malattia acuta, cronica e di remissione attraverso un indice quantitativo (E-RM score).

Materiali e metodi

Cento pazienti con diagnosi istologica di MC sono stati studiati con E-RM. La distensione intestinale è stata ottenuta somministrando per os circa 2 l di una soluzione di glicole polietilenico (PEG). In tutti i casi l’ileo e l’intestino crasso sono stati studiati utilizzando sequenze morfologiche (T2w single shotheavy weight, DUAL fast field echo, balanced fast field echo) ed una sequenza dinamica post-contrastografica (T1w high resolution isotropic volume excitation). L’attività di malattia è stata valutata mediante uno score multiparametrico (compreso tra 0 e 8) basato sulle caratteristiche morfologiche, di segnale e contrastografiche delle lesioni. I dati della E-RM sono stati confrontati con quelli clinico-laboratoristici e con gli indici di attività di malattia (Crohn Disease Activity Index,CDAI; Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, IBDQ). Un’analisi statistica di regressione multipla è stata eseguita correlando le seguenti variabili: score E-RM, CDAI e IBDQ. Le frequenze sono state confrontate con il test del χ2.

Risultati

La E-RM ha identificato nel 9% dei casi una fase di remissione di malattia, nel 57% una fase cronica e nel restante 34% una fase di malattia attiva. Il segmento intestinale maggiormente coinvolto dalla patologia è stato l’ileo terminale (52%). è stata osservata una correlazione statisticamente significativa tra score E-RM e CDAI (R=0,86; p<0,001) e tra score E-RM ed IBDQ (R=−0,83; p<0,001). Il parametro più indicativo di attività di malattia è stato il pattern di contrast enhancement (ce) parietale di tipo stratificato, reperto presente prevalentemente nei pazienti con valore di CDAI aumentato (≥150) e/o con complicanze locali (χ2=7,13; p<0,01).

Conclusioni

La E-RM rappresenta una metodica d’imaging non invasiva e diagnostica per lo studio ed il follow-up del MC. Lo score E-RM da noi proposto si è rivelato utile nella valutazione della severità di malattia e nel monitoraggio della risposta al trattamento.

Parole chiave

Morbo di Crohn Enterografia-RM Attività di malattia Score E-RM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Herfarth H, Rogler G (2005) Inflammatory bowel disease. Endoscopy 37:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Best WR, Becktel JM, Singleton JW, Kern F (1976) Development of a Crohn’s disease activity index: National Cooperative Crohn’s Disease Study. Gastroenterology 70:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyatt G, Mitchell A, Irvine EJ et al (1989) A new measure of health status for clinical trials in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 96:804–810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koh DM, Miao Y, Chinn RJS et al (2001) MR imaging evaluation of the activity of Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1325–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Low RN, Sebrechts CP, Politoske DA et al (2002) Crohn disease with endoscopic correlation: single shot fast spin-echo and gadolinium enhanced fatsuppressed spoiled gradient echo MR imaging. Radiology 222:652–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maccioni F, Viscido A, Broglia L et al (2000) Evaluation of Crohn disease activity with magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 25:219–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meyers MA, McGuire PV (1995) Spiral CT demonstration of hypervascularity in Crohn disease: “Vascular jejunization of the ileum” or the “comb sign.” Abdom Imaging 20:327–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Born C, Nagel B, Leinsinger G, Reiser M (2003) MRI with oral filling in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases [in German]. Radiologe 43:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schunk K, Kern A, Oberholzer K et al (2000) Hydro-MRI in Crohn’s disease: appraisal of disease activity. Invest Radiol 35:431–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pauls S, Kratzer W, Rieber A et al (2003) Quantifying the inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease using CE dynamic MRI. Rofo 175:1093–1099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laghi A, Borrelli O, Paolantonio P et al (2003) Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the terminal ileum in children with Crohn’s disease. Gut 52:393–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Low RN, Francis IR, Politoske D, Bennett M (2000) Crohn’s disease evaluation: comparison of contrastenhanced MR imaging and single-phase helical CT scanning. J Magn Reson Imaging 11:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gauldie J, Richards C (1994) Systemic symptoms/acute phase response. In: Targen SP, Shanahan F (eds) Inflammatory bowel disease: from bench to bedside. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 230–238Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido A et al (2006) 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
  16. 16.
    Gualdi GF, Volpe A, Polettini E et al (1994) Computerized tomography and magnetic resonance in the evaluation of patients with Crohn disease. Their role in the identification, assessment of extent and management of the disease. Clin Ter 144:545–551Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gualdi GF, Polettini E, Minervini S (1994) Computerized tomography and magnetic resonance in Crohn’s disease. Ann Ital Chir 65:275–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Negaard A, Sandvik L, Berstad AE et al (2008) MRI of the small bowel with oral contrast or nasojejunal intubation in Crohn’s disease: randomized comparison of patient acceptance. Scand J Gastroenterol 43:44–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frokjaer JB, Larsen E, Steffensen E et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 40:832–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E et al (2008) Comparison of MR enteroclysis with MR enterography and conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 18:438–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Punwani S, Rodriguez-Justo M, Bainbridge A et al (2009) Mural inflammation in Crohn disease: location-matched histologic validation of MR imaging features. Radiology 252:712–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martinez MJ, Ripolles T, Paredes JM et al (2009) Assessment of the extension and the inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease: comparison of ultrasound and MRI. Abdom Imaging 34:141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Hanauer SB et al (2002) A review of activity indices and efficacy endpoints for clinical trials of medical therapy in adults with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 122:512–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denis MA, Reenaers C, Fontaine F et al (2007) Assessment of endoscopic activity index and biological inflammatory markers in clinically active Crohn’s disease with normal C-reactive protein serum level. Inflamm Bowel Dis 13:1100–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hara AK, Leighton JA, Heigh RI et al (2006) Crohn disease of the small bowel: preliminary comparison among CT enterography, capsule endoscopy, small-bowel follow-through, and ileoscopy. Radiology 238:128–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A et al (2005) Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut 54:1721–1727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    Mackalski BA, Bernstein CN (2006) New diagnostic imaging tools for inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 55:733–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2004) Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity in the small bowel with MR and conventional enteroclysis: preliminary results. Eur Radiol 14:1017–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E et al (2006) Assessment of Crohn’s disease in the small bowel: Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis with conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16:2817–2827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Negaard A, Sandvik L, Mulahasanovic A et al (2006) Magnetic resonance enteroclysis in the diagnosis of smallintestinal Crohn’s disease: diagnostic accuracy and inter- and intra-observer agreement. Acta Radiol 47:1008–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wiarda BM, Kuipers EJ, Heitbrink MA et al (2006) MR enteroclysis of inflammatory small-bowel diseases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:522–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee SS, Kim AY, Yang SK et al (2009) Crohn disease of the small bowel: comparison of CT enterography, MR enterography, and small-bowel followthrough as diagnostic techniques. Radiology 251:751–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J et al (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 12:2651–2658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Iafrate F et al (2003) MR of the small bowel with a biphasic oral contrast agent (polyethylene glycol): technical aspects and findings in patients affected by Crohn’s disease. Radiol Med 106:18–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Del Vescovo R, Sansoni I, Caviglia R et al (2008) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the terminal ileum: differentiation of activity of Crohn’s disease. Abdom Imaging 33:417–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sempere GA, Martinez Sanjuan V, Medina Chulia E et al (2005) MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1829–1835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Röttgen R, Herzog H, Lopez-Häninnen E, Felix R (2006) Bowel wall enhancement in magnetic resonance colonography for assessing activity in Crohn’s disease. Clin Imaging 30:27–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Taylor SA, Punwani S, Rodriguez-Justo M et al (2009) Mural Crohn disease: correlation of dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging findings with angiogenesis and inflammation at histologic examination-pilot study. Radiology 251:369–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Girometti R, Zuiani C, Toso F et al (2008) MRI scoring system including dynamic motility evaluation in assessing the activity of Crohn’s disease of the terminal ileum. Acad Radiol 15:153–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Macarini
    • 1
  • L. P. Stoppino
    • 1
  • A. Centola
    • 1
  • S. Muscarella
    • 1
  • F. Fortunato
    • 2
  • F. Coppolino
    • 3
  • N. Della Valle
    • 4
  • V. Ierardi
    • 4
  • P. Milillo
    • 1
  • R. Vinci
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Medical Science — Section of HygieneUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  4. 4.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of FoggiaFoggiaItaly

Personalised recommendations