Familial Cancer

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 555–561 | Cite as

Magnetic resonance colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with Lynch syndrome gene mutation

  • Eu Jin Lim
  • Christopher Leung
  • Alex Pitman
  • Damien L. Stella
  • Gregor Brown
  • Masha Slattery
  • Kaye Marion
  • Finlay Macrae


Lynch syndrome gene carriers have a 50–80% risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines recommend yearly colonoscopy, with associated procedure-related risks. Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) was evaluated as a non-invasive alternative for CRC screening in this high-risk population. Adult Lynch syndrome gene carriers underwent both screening procedures on the same day. MRI radiologists read the scans and rated image quality. Endoscopists performed colonoscopy unaware of MRC findings until after procedure completion. If lesions were detected, their number, size and location were noted. Post-procedure, patients compared discomfort and inconvenience of MRC and colonoscopy on a visual analogue scale. Thirty patients were recruited. 83% of the MRC scans were of adequate to good quality. MRC detected three lesions in three patients (70, 36, 17 mm). All 3 were independently detected on colonoscopy, excised and found to be CRC. MRC failed to detect a 3 mm CRC found on colonoscopy. CRC prevalence was 13%. Colonoscopy detected a further 30 polyps, all <10 mm. Of these, 17 were hyperplastic polyps and 10 normal mucosa. Colonoscopy had a false positive rate of 32% as defined by histology. MRC failed to detect any polyp <10 mm. Mean patient discomfort scores were 20% for MRC and 68% for colonoscopy, P = 0.003. Mean patient inconvenience scores were 54% for MRC and 52% for colonoscopy, P = 0.931. MRC was reliable in detecting large polyps, potentially CRC. However MRC currently has poor sensitivity in detecting small polyps, limiting its utility in adenoma screening at this time. MRC was associated with less discomfort than CC.


Lynch syndrome Magnetic resonance colonography Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer screening 



Colorectal cancer


Computed tomography colonography


Deoxyribonucleic acid


Human MutL Homolog-1


Mismatch repair


Magnetic resonance colonography


Magnetic resonance imaging


Human MutS Homolog-2


Human MutS Homolog-6


  1. 1.
    Annie Yu HJ, Lin KM, Ota DM et al (2003) Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: preventive management. Cancer Treat Rev 29(6):461–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeFrancisco J (2003) Diagnosis and management of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 58(3):390–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chung DC, Rustgi AK (2003) The hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: genetics and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 138(7):560–570PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lynch HT, De la Chapelle A (2003) Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348(10):919–932CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118(5):829–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 60(9):980–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365(9456):305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Kivisaari A, Kivisaari L et al (2007) Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Fam Cancer 6(1):135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291(14):1713–1719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G et al (2002) Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families. Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1588–1594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJE et al (2003) Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Intern Med J 33:355–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ (2005) Surveillance in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer 4(3):267–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119(2):300–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2006) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238(1):143–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S et al (2000) Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 216(2):383–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738–1743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yusuf E, Florie J, Nio CY et al. (2009) Incidental extracolonic findings on bright lumen MR colonography in a population at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol Oct 15. Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Achiam MP, Holst Andersen LP, Klein M et al (2009) Preoperative evaluation of synchronous colorectal cancer using MR colonography. Acad Radiol 16(7):790–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC et al (2007) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 56(8):1079–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saar B, Gschossmann JM, Bonel HM et al (2008) Evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Invest Radiol 43(8):580–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lauenstein TC, Saar B, Martin DR (2007) MR colonography: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15(3):395–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eu Jin Lim
    • 1
  • Christopher Leung
    • 1
  • Alex Pitman
    • 2
  • Damien L. Stella
    • 3
  • Gregor Brown
    • 1
  • Masha Slattery
    • 1
  • Kaye Marion
    • 4
  • Finlay Macrae
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology and Clinical Nutrition ServiceRoyal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySt. Vincent’s Hospital MelbourneFitzroyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyRoyal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.School of Mathematical and Geospatial SciencesRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations