MRI-enema for the assessment of pelvic intestinal anastomotic integrity.

AIM: Anastomotic leak causes significant morbidity for patients undergoing pelvic intestinal surgery. Fluoroscopic assessment of anastomotic integrity using water-soluble contrast enema (WSCE) is of questionable benefit over examination alone. We hypothesized that MRI-enema may be more accurate. The aim of this study was to compare MRI-enema with fluoroscopic WSCE. METHOD: Patients referred for WSCE with pelvic intestinal anastomosis and defunctioning ileostomy (including patients with suspected or known leaks) were invited to participate. WSCE and MRI-enema were undertaken within 48 h of each other. MRI sequences were performed before, during and immediately after the introduction of 400 ml of 1% gadolinium contrast solution per anus. MRI examinations were reported to protocol by two blinded gastrointestinal radiologists. A Likert-scale patient questionnaire was administered to compare patient experience. Follow-up was >12 months after ileostomy reversal. Anastomotic leak was determined by unblinded consensus of examination and radiological findings. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were recruited, with a median age of 39 years (range 22-69). Ten were men, 11 had ileoanal pouch formation and five had low anterior resection. Five patients had anastomotic leak identified by MRI and four by WSCE. The radial location of the anastomotic defect was identified in all five patients by MRI versus two on WSCE. MRI revealed additional information including contents of a widened presacral space. Patient experience was equivalent. Eleven patients eventually had ileostomy reversal without complications. CONCLUSION: MRI-enema is a feasible and tolerable alternative to WSCE and offers greater anatomical detail in the context of pelvic intestinal anastomotic leak. Larger prospective studies are required to define its potential role in the UK National Health Service.

Magnetic resonance enterography compared with ultrasonography in newly diagnosed and relapsing Crohn's disease patients: the METRIC diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance enterography and enteric ultrasonography are used to image Crohn's disease patients. Their diagnostic accuracy for presence, extent and activity of enteric Crohn's disease was compared. OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic accuracy, observer variability, acceptability, diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography in newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease. DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Eight NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive participants aged ≥ 16 years, newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease or with established Crohn's disease and suspected relapse. INTERVENTIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-participant sensitivity difference between magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for small bowel Crohn's disease extent. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease extent, and sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease presence; identification of active disease; interobserver variation; participant acceptability; diagnostic impact; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Out of the 518 participants assessed, 335 entered the trial, with 51 excluded, giving a final cohort of 284 (133 and 151 in new diagnosis and suspected relapse cohorts, respectively). Across the whole cohort, for small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 86%] was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (70%, 95% CI 62% to 78%), with a 10% difference (95% CI 1% to 18%; p = 0.027). For small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography specificity (95%, 95% CI 85% to 98%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography specificity (81%, 95% CI 64% to 91%), with a 14% difference (95% CI 1% to 27%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (97%, 95% CI 91% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 84% to 96%), with a 5% difference (95% CI 1% to 9%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography specificity was 96% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and ultrasonography specificity was 84% (95% CI 65% to 94%), with a 12% difference (95% CI 0% to 25%). Test sensitivities for small bowel Crohn's disease presence and extent were similar in the two cohorts. For colonic Crohn's disease presence in newly diagnosed participants, ultrasonography sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 49% to 81%) was significantly greater than magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (47%, 95% CI 31% to 64%), with a 20% difference (95% CI 1% to 39%). For active small bowel Crohn's disease, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 92% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (90%, 95% CI 82% to 95%), with a 6% difference (95% CI 2% to 11%). There was some disagreement between readers for both tests. A total of 88% of participants rated magnetic resonance enterography as very or fairly acceptable, which is significantly lower than the percentage (99%) of participants who did so for ultrasonography. Therapeutic decisions based on magnetic resonance enterography alone and ultrasonography alone agreed with the final decision in 122 out of 158 (77%) cases and 124 out of 158 (78%) cases, respectively. There were no differences in costs or quality-adjusted life-years between tests. LIMITATIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography scans were interpreted by practitioners blinded to clinical data (but not participant cohort), which does not reflect use in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance enterography has higher accuracy for detecting the presence, extent and activity of small bowel Crohn's disease than ultrasonography does. Both tests have variable interobserver agreement and are broadly acceptable to participants, although ultrasonography produces less participant burden. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness are similar. Recommendations for future work include investigation of the comparative utility of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for treatment response assessment and investigation of non-specific abdominal symptoms to confirm or refute Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03982913. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Crohn's disease is a waxing and waning lifelong inflammatory condition that affects the colon (large bowel) and small bowel. Treatment relies on accurately determining disease extent and underlying inflammation. Colonoscopy is very good for examining the colon, but it is invasive and, at best, can only visualise a few centimetres of the small bowel, so radiological imaging is very important. Magnetic resonance enterography (a type of magnetic resonance imaging scan) and ultrasonography are both radiological tests commonly performed in the NHS, and it is unclear which method is better. We performed a study to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for determining the extent of Crohn's disease in the bowel of participants newly diagnosed and in those participants with established Crohn's disease but with suspected deterioration. We also investigated how often radiologists agree with each other during test interpretation, the participant experience of undergoing the tests and their cost-effectiveness. We compared the tests in 284 participants (133 newly diagnosed and 151 with suspected deterioration). We found that both tests were accurate for detecting the presence (97% for magnetic resonance enterography and 92% for ultrasonography) and location (80% for magnetic resonance enterography and 70% for ultrasonography) of disease in the small bowel, but magnetic resonance enterography was better than ultrasonography for both (correctly classifying disease extent in 107 more participants for every 1000 participants with Crohn's disease). Magnetic resonance enterography was similarly better than ultrasonography at determining if the bowel was inflamed. The results were similar in newly diagnosed participants and those participants with suspected deterioration. Agreement between radiologists interpreting the same images was, at best, moderate for both tests. A total of 88% of participants tolerated magnetic resonance enterography well or fairly well, which was less than the percentage (99%) of participants who tolerated ultrasonography well or fairly well. Both tests had a similar effect on the treatment decisions made by doctors. Both tests were also similar in their value for money for the NHS.

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn's disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound are used to image Crohn's disease, but their comparative accuracy for assessing disease extent and activity is not known with certainty. Therefore, we did a multicentre trial to address this issue. METHODS: We recruited patients from eight UK hospitals. Eligible patients were 16 years or older, with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease or with established disease and suspected relapse. Consecutive patients had MRE and ultrasound in addition to standard investigations. Discrepancy between MRE and ultrasound for the presence of small bowel disease triggered an additional investigation, if not already available. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for small bowel disease extent (correct identification and segmental localisation) against a construct reference standard (panel diagnosis). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN03982913, and has been completed. FINDINGS: 284 patients completed the trial (133 in the newly diagnosed group, 151 in the relapse group). Based on the reference standard, 233 (82%) patients had small bowel Crohn's disease. The sensitivity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (80% [95% CI 72-86]) and presence (97% [91-99]) were significantly greater than that of ultrasound (70% [62-78] for disease extent, 92% [84-96] for disease presence); a 10% (95% CI 1-18; p=0·027) difference for extent, and 5% (1-9; p=0·025) difference for presence. The specificity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (95% [85-98]) was significantly greater than that of ultrasound (81% [64-91]); a difference of 14% (1-27; p=0·039). The specificity for small bowel disease presence was 96% (95% CI 86-99) with MRE and 84% (65-94) with ultrasound (difference 12% [0-25]; p=0·054). There were no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Both MRE and ultrasound have high sensitivity for detecting small bowel disease presence and both are valid first-line investigations, and viable alternatives to ileocolonoscopy. However, in a national health service setting, MRE is generally the preferred radiological investigation when available because its sensitivity and specificity exceed ultrasound significantly. FUNDING: National Institute of Health and Research Health Technology Assessment.

Volume assessment magnetic resonance imaging technique for monitoring perianal Crohn's fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Perianal Crohn's fistula and their response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapies are best assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but radiologist reporting is subjective and variable. This study investigates whether segmentation software could provide precise and reproducible objective measurements of fistula volume. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with perianal Crohn's fistula at our institution between 2007 and 2013. Pre- and post-biologic MRI scans were used with varying time intervals. A total of two radiologists recorded fistula volumes, mean signal intensity and time taken to measure fistula volumes using validated Open Source segmentation software. A total of three radiologists assessed fistula response to treatment (improved, worse or unchanged) by comparing MRI scans. RESULTS: A total of 18 cases were reviewed for this pilot study. Inter-observer variability was very good for volume and mean signal intensity; intra-class correlation (ICC) 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.98] and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.97) respectively. Intra-observer variability was very good for volume and mean signal intensity; ICC 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) respectively. Average time taken to measure fistula volume was 202 s and 250 s for readers 1 and 2. Agreement between three specialist radiologists was good [kappa 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.90)] for the subjective assessment of fistula response. Significant association was found between objective percentage volume change and subjective consensus agreement of response (p = 0.001). Median volume change for improved, stable or worsening fistula response was -67% [interquartile range (IQR): -78, -47], 0% (IQR: -16, +17), and +487% (IQR: +217, +559) respectively. CONCLUSION: Quantification of fistula volumes and signal intensities is feasible and reliable, providing an objective measure of perianal Crohn's fistula and response to treatment.