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.

METRIC (MREnterography or ulTRasound in Crohn's disease): a study protocol for a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective comparison study of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound compared to a reference standard in those aged 16 and over.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a lifelong, relapsing and remitting inflammatory condition of the intestine. Medical imaging is crucial for diagnosis, phenotyping, activity assessment and detecting complications. Diverse small bowel imaging tests are available but a standard algorithm for deployment is lacking. Many hospitals employ tests that impart ionising radiation, of particular concern to this young patient population. Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and small bowel ultrasound (USS) are attractive options, as they do not use ionising radiation. However, their comparative diagnostic accuracy has not been compared in large head to head trials. METRIC aims to compare the diagnostic efficacy, therapeutic impact and cost effectiveness of MRE and USS in newly diagnosed and relapsing CD. METHODS: METRIC (ISRCTN03982913) is a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective comparison study. Two patient cohorts will be recruited; those newly diagnosed with CD, and those with suspected relapse. Both will undergo MRE and USS in addition to other imaging tests performed as part of clinical care. Strict blinding protocols will be enforced for those interpreting MRE and USS. The Harvey Bradshaw index, C-reactive protein and faecal calprotectin will be collected at recruitment and 3 months, and patient experience will be assessed via questionnaires. A multidisciplinary consensus panel will assess all available clinical and imaging data up to 6 months after recruitment of each patient and will define the standard of reference for the presence, localisation and activity of disease against which the diagnostic accuracy of MRE and USS will be judged. Diagnostic impact of MRE and USS will be evaluated and cost effectiveness will be assessed. The primary outcome measure is the difference in per patient sensitivity between MRE and USS for the correct identification and localisation of small bowel CD. DISCUSSION: The trial is open at 5 centres with 46 patients recruited. We highlight the importance of stringent blinding protocols in order to delineate the true diagnostic accuracy of both imaging tests and discuss the difficulties of diagnostic accuracy studies in the absence of a single standard of reference, describing our approach utilising a consensus panel whilst minimising incorporation bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: METRIC - ISRCTN03982913 - 05.11.13.

Can histopathologic assessment of circumferential margin after preoperative pelvic chemoradiotherapy for T3-T4 rectal cancer predict for 3-year disease-free survival?

PURPOSE: This study set out to determine the impact of a positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (R1-R2) and pathologic downstaging on local recurrence and survival in patients with borderline resectable or unresectable rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were treated with long-course neoadjuvant CRT using low-dose folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil. CRT was followed 6-12 weeks later by surgical excision. The CRM rate and incidence, site, and pattern of local and systemic recurrences were recorded. The median follow-up was 25 months. RESULTS: The overall median survival was 37 months, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 34%. Of the 150 patients, 122 underwent curative resection; 12% had a complete pathologic response, and downstaging to pT1-T2 occurred in an additional 16%. A negative CRM (R0) was achieved in 65% overall (98 of 150). Local recurrence occurred in 10% of those with R0 resection and 62% of those with R1-R2 resections. Distant metastases occurred in 29% of those with R0 resections and 75% of those with R1-R2 resections. The 3-year disease-free and 3-year overall survival rate was 9% and 25% and 52% and 64%, respectively, for patients with and without a histologically positive CRM. CONCLUSION: After 5-fluorouracil-based CRT, a positive CRM predicted for a high risk of subsequent local recurrence and a 3-year disease-free survival rate of only 9%. For this reason, the CRM should be considered a major prognostic factor and should be validated in future trials as an early alternative clinical endpoint.