Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of celiac disease with uniphasic and multiphasic dynamic MDCT imaging

  • Hollow Organ GI
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

An analysis of dynamic contrast MRI has been shown to provide valuable information about disease activity in Crohn’s disease and Celiac disease (CD). However, there are no reports of dynamic multi-detector computer tomography use in patients with CD. The aim of this study is to determine and compare the perfusion dynamics of the patients treated with control subjects and the perfusion dynamics in patients with untreated CD, using dynamic contrast in MDCT and compare studying contrast dynamics in Marsh types as well.

Methods

In this retrospective study, uniphasic and multiphasic MDCT, untreated, treated, incompatible CD patients and healthy control group duodenum wall thickness and HU values were compared in terms of patient groups and modified Marsh types.

Result

In dynamic CT, the highest contrast curve was observed in the untreated group and Marsh type 1. While the contrast curve of the untreated and non-compliant patients increased rapidly and showed wash out, the type 4 contrast curve was observed, whereas the treated and control group slowly increased type 5 contrast curve. In the contrast-enhanced CT in the venous phase, in the ROC analysis between Marsh 1–2 and Marsh 3a–c, the sensitivity was 97% and the specificity was 87% when the cut off was taken as 4.45 mm for wall thickness (p: 0.005).

Conclusion

Contrast-enhanced single-phase and dynamic MDCT imaging in CD patients may be useful in evaluating the inflammatory and pathological process in the small intestine.

Graphic abstract

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Husby S, Koletzko S, Korponay-Szabo IR, Mearin ML, Phillips A, Shamir R, et al. (2012) European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.54(1):136-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e31821a23d0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ludvigsson JF, Leffler DA, Bai JC, Biagi F, Fasano A, Green PH, et al. (2013) The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms. Gut.62(1):43-52. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ensari A, Marsh MN (2019) Diagnosing celiac disease: A critical overview. Turk J Gastroenterol.30(5):389-97. https://doi.org/10.5152/tjg.2018.18635

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Tonutti E, Bizzaro N (2014) Diagnosis and classification of celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. Autoimmunity Reviews.13(4):472-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2014.01.043

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Florie J, Wasser MN, Arts-Cieslik K, Akkerman EM, Siersema PD, Stoker J (2006) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the bowel wall for assessment of disease activity in Crohn’s disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol.186(5):1384-92. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Masselli G, Picarelli A, Di Tola M, Libanori V, Donato G, Polettini E, et al. (2010) Celiac disease: evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology.256(3):783-90. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor SA, Punwani S, Rodriguez-Justo M, Bainbridge A, Greenhalgh R, De Vita E, et al. (2009) Mural Crohn disease: correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings with angiogenesis and inflammation at histologic examination--pilot study. Radiology.251(2):369-79. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2512081292

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lavini C, de Jonge MC, van de Sande MG, Tak PP, Nederveen AJ, Maas M (2007) Pixel-by-pixel analysis of DCE MRI curve patterns and an illustration of its application to the imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Magn Reson Imaging.25(5):604-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2006.10.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eriksen RO, Strauch LS, Sandgaard M, Kristensen TS, Nielsen MB, Lauridsen CA (2016) Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer. Diagnostics (Basel).6(3):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics6030034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kang J, Ryu JK, Son JH, Lee JW, Choi JH, Lee SH, et al. (2018) Association between pathologic grade and multiphase computed tomography enhancement in pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol.33(9):1677-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mains JR, Donskov F, Pedersen EM, Madsen HH, Rasmussen F (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography as a potential biomarker in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: preliminary results from the Danish Renal Cancer Group Study-1. Invest Radiol.49(9):601-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Onishi H, Murakami T, Kim T, Hori M, Iannaccone R, Kuwabara M, et al. (2006) Hepatic metastases: detection with multi-detector row CT, SPIO-enhanced MR imaging, and both techniques combined. Radiology.239(1):131-8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383041825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsurumaru D, Miyasaka M, Muraki T, Asayama Y, Nishie A, Oki E, et al. (2017) Diffuse-type gastric cancer: specific enhancement pattern on multiphasic contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Jpn J Radiol.35(6):289-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0631-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boscak AR, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Fleiter TR, Miller LA, Sliker CW, et al. (2013) Optimizing trauma multidetector CT protocol for blunt splenic injury: need for arterial and portal venous phase scans. Radiology.268(1):79-88. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanki A, Ito K, Tamada T, Higashi H, Sato T, Tanimoto D, et al. (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen to predict clinical prognosis in patients with hypovolemic shock. AJR Am J Roentgenol.197(6):W980-4. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kidoh M, Nakaura T, Oda S, Namimoto T, Awai K, Yoshinaka I, et al. (2013) Contrast enhancement during hepatic computed tomography: effect of total body weight, height, body mass index, blood volume, lean body weight, and body surface area. J Comput Assist Tomogr.37(2):159-64. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e31827dbc08

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hayes C, Padhani AR, Leach MO (2002) Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed.15(2):154-63. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.756

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Karandish E, Hachem C (2009) Celiac disease. Mo Med.106(5):346-50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Horsthuis K, Lavini C, Bipat S, Stokkers PC, Stoker J (2009) Perianal Crohn disease: evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging as an indicator of disease activity. Radiology.251(2):380-7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2512072128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Danese S, Sans M, de la Motte C, Graziani C, West G, Phillips MH, et al. (2006) Angiogenesis as a novel component of inflammatory bowel disease pathogenesis. Gastroenterology.130(7):2060-73. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.03.054

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Myrsky E, Kaukinen K, Syrjanen M, Korponay-Szabo IR, Maki M, Lindfors K (2008) Coeliac disease-specific autoantibodies targeted against transglutaminase 2 disturb angiogenesis. Clin Exp Immunol.152(1):111-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.2008.03600.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tomei E, Semelka RC, Braga L, Laghi A, Paolantonio P, Marini M, et al. (2006) Adult celiac disease: what is the role of MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging.24(3):625-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20664

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Biagi F, Bianchi PI, Campanella J, Badulli C, Martinetti M, Klersy C, et al. (2008) The prevalence and the causes of minimal intestinal lesions in patients complaining of symptoms suggestive of enteropathy: a follow-up study. J Clin Pathol.61(10):1116-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2008.060145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical Faculty, Yuzuncu Yıl University, Campus, 65080, Tusba, Van, Turkey

    Cemil Göya, İlyas Dündar, Mesut Özgökçe, Saim Türkoğlu, Ensar Türko & Sercan Özkaçmaz

  2. Department of Pathology, Medical Faculty, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey

    Gülay Aydoğdu

  3. Department of General Surgery, Medical Faculty, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey

    Necat Almalı

Authors
  1. Cemil Göya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. İlyas Dündar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mesut Özgökçe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saim Türkoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ensar Türko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sercan Özkaçmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gülay Aydoğdu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Necat Almalı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CG: Conceptualization, Writing—Original Draft, Formal analysis, Project administration, Supervision. İD: Software, Data Curation, Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing. MÖ: Validation, Writing—Review & Editing, Formal analysis. ST: Resources, Data Curation, Visualization, Investigation. ET: Data Curation, Software, Visualization. SÖ: Data Curation, Software, Visualization. GA: Investigation, Data Curation. NA: Resources, Methodology, Data Curation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İlyas Dündar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Göya, C., Dündar, İ., Özgökçe, M. et al. Evaluation of celiac disease with uniphasic and multiphasic dynamic MDCT imaging. Abdom Radiol 46, 5564–5573 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03253-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03253-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation