Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: A prospective cross sectional study in a screening population

Gut

Volumn 56, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 1079-1085

  Kuehle, Christiane A ^a   Langhorst, Jost ^a   Ladd, Susanne C ^a   Zoepf, Thomas ^a   Nuefer, Michael ^a   Grabellus, Florian ^b   Barkhausen, Joerg ^a   Gerken, Guido ^a   Lauenstein, Thomas C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^b Catholic Hospital Essen   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIATRIZOATE; GADOLINIUM;

ADENOMATOUS POLYP; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CLEANING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE COLONOGRAPHY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGMOID; TREATMENT PLANNING;

ADENOMA; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLON; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIATRIZOATE MEGLUMINE; FECES; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERPLASIA; INTESTINAL POLYPOSIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE STANDARDS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34248142607     PISSN: 00175749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.109306     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:8-29.
2. Grady WM. Epigenetic events in the colorectum and in colon cancer. Biochem Soc Trans 2005;33:684-8.
3. Increased use of colorectal cancer tests - United States, 2002 and 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55:308-11.
4. Geenen RW, Hussain SM, Cademartiri F, et al. CT and MR colonography: scanning techniques, postprocessing, and emphasis on polyp detection. Radiographics 2004;24:e18.
5. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191-200.
6. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232:735-8.
7. Debatin JF, Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P. Virtual colonoscopy in 1999: computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging? Endoscopy 1999;31:174-9.
8. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U, et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003;52:1738-43.
9. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D, et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2006;238:143-9.
10. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000;119:300-4.
11. Tangka FK, Molinari NA, Chattopadhyay SK, et al. Market for colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy in the United States. Am J Prev Med 2005;29:54-60.
12. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002;12:1410-15.
13. Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L, et al. Patient factors influencing the completion rate in colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 2005;37:113-18.
14. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, et al. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:307-14.
15. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24-8.
16. Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2005;234:452-9.
17. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D, et al. Incomplete conventional colonoscopy: magnetic resonance colonography in the evaluation of the proximal colon. Endoscopy 2005;37:816-20.
18. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713-19.
19. Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 2005;365:305-11.
20. Rogalla P, Meiri N, Hoksch B, et al. Low-dose spiral computed tomography for measuring abdominal fat volume and distribution in a clinical setting. Eur J Clin Nutr 1998;52:597-602.
21. Bond JH. Clinical relevance of the small colorectal polyp. Endoscopy 2001;33:454-57.
22. Ferrucci JT. Colon cancer screening with virtual colonoscopy: promise, polyps, politics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:975-88.
23. Ferrucci JT. Colonoscopy: virtual and optical - another look, another view. Radiology 2005;235:13-16.
24. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Krueger WR, et al. Contrast-enhanced CT colonography in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: feasibility of simultaneous evaluation for metastatic disease, local recurrence, and metachronous neoplasia in colorectal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:283-90.
25. Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Bria E, et al. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 2003;13:883-9.
26. Kirchin MA, Runge VM. Contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: safety update. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003;14:426-35.
27. Shellock FG, Kanal E. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:477-84.
28. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Steiner P, et al. Preliminary assessment of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging for various colonic disorders. Lancet 1997;349:1288-91.
29. Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Vogt FM, et al. Dark lumen MR-colonography: initial experience. Rofo 2001;173:785-9.
30. Lauenstein TC, Ajaj W, Kuehle CA, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography: comparison of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional vibe with two-dimensional FISP sequences: preliminary experience. Invest Radiol 2005;40:89-96.
31. Bruzzi JF, Moss AC, Brennan DD, et al. Colonic surveillance by CT colonography using axial images only. Eur Radiol 2004;14:763-7.
32. Bond JH. Clinical evidence for the adenoma-carcinoma sequence, and the management of patients with colorectal adenomas. Semin Gastrointest Dis 2000;11:176-84.
33. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG. The advanced adenoma as the primary target of screening. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2002;12:1-9v.
34. Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:264-71.
35. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162-8.
36. Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S, et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med 2000;31:323-34.
37. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in screening for colorectal cancer - United States, 1997 and 1999. JAMA 2001;285:1570-1.
38. Mant D, Fuller A, Northover J, et al. Patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1992;42:18-20.
39. Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, et al. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:310-15.
40. van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004;233:328-37.
41. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, et al. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:578-85.