Background and Study Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dark-lumen magnetic resonance (MR) colonography
prospectively in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.
Patients and Methods: Thirty-two patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy underwent same-day dark-lumen
MR colonography on the basis of a standard protocol. The depiction of colorectal diseases
was assessed in the following colon segments: cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon,
descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum. The reasons for incomplete colonoscopy
included high-grade stenosis in 26 patients (four with occlusive cancer, 12 with fibrotic
stenosis based on recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis, eight with Crohn’s-induced stenosis,
and two with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug colonopathy), extreme patient intolerance
in one patient, and technical challenges associated with an elongated colon in five
patients. The results of MR colonography were compared with the findings of the initial
conventional colonoscopy, the histopathological outcome, and follow-up colonoscopy
when possible.
Results: All high-grade stenoses were confirmed on MR colonographic data sets. Of the 26 patients
with high-grade stenosis, 19 underwent surgery with histopathological confirmation
of the initial diagnosis. Follow-up colonoscopy was carried out in 14 patients with
surgically treated high-grade stenosis. In six of these 14 patients, nine polyps identified
at the initial MR colonography were confirmed and removed during a postoperative conventional
colonoscopy. Two polyps (5 mm and 8 mm in diameter) identified on postoperative conventional
colonoscopy had not been seen preoperatively at MR colonography. One polyp seen on
MR colonography was not identified in the follow-up colonoscopy.
Conclusion: Dark-lumen MR colonography is a feasible and useful method of evaluating the entire
colon in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.
References
1
Winawer S J, Zauber A G, Ho M N. et al .
Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study
Workgroup.
N Engl J Med.
1993;
329
1977-1981
2
Smith R A, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach A C. et al .
American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer.
Ca Cancer J Clin.
2002;
52
8-22
3
Brown A L, Skehan S J, Greaney T. et al .
Value of double-contrast barium enema performed immediately after incomplete colonoscopy.
AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2001;
176
943-945
4
Chong A, Shah J N, Levine M S. et al .
Diagnostic yield of barium enema examination after incomplete colonoscopy.
Radiology.
2002;
223
620-624
5
Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, Vagli P. et al .
Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete
colonoscopy.
Radiology.
2002;
223
615-619
6
Fenlon H M, McAneny D B, Nunes D P. et al .
Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the
proximal colon.
Radiology.
1999;
210
423-428
7
Ajaj W, Lauenstein T C, Pelster G. et al .
MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.
Radiology.
2005;
234
452-459
8
Marshall J B, Barthel J S.
The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990 s.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1993;
39
518-520
9
Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L. et al .
The impact of endoscopists’ experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation
on colonoscopy completion rates.
Endoscopy.
2001;
33
511-517
10
Gilbertsen V A.
Proctosigmoidoscopy and polypectomy in reducing the incidence of rectal cancer.
Cancer.
1974;
34 (Suppl)
936-939
11
Gilbertsen V.
Colon cancer screening: the Minnesota experience.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1980;
26
31S-32S
12
Culpan D G, Mitchell A J, Hughes S. et al .
Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: a comparison of studies by radiographers
and radiologists.
Clin Radiol.
2002;
57
604-607
13
Taylor S A, Halligan S, Saunders B P. et al .
Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema
examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.
AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2003;
181
913-921
14
Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D. et al .
Prospective comparison of dark lumen MR colonography and conventional colonoscopy
for the detection of colorectal polyps.
Radiology [in press].
15
Bat L, Neumann G, Shemesh E.
The association of synchronous neoplasms with occluding colorectal cancer.
Dis Colon Rectum.
1985;
28
149-151
16
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
1738-1743
17
Pradel J A, Adell J F, Taourel P. et al .
Acute colonic diverticulitis: prospective comparative evaluation with US and CT.
Radiology.
1997;
205
503-512
18
Heverhagen J T, Zielke A, Ishaque N. et al .
Acute colonic diverticulitis: visualization in magnetic resonance imaging.
Magn Reson Imaging.
2001;
19
1275-1277
19
Schreyer A G, Furst A, Agha A. et al .
Magnetic resonance imaging based colonography for diagnosis and assessment of diverticulosis
and diverticulitis.
Int J Colorectal Dis.
2004;
19
474-480
G. Layer, M. D.
Dept. of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology · Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen
GmbH
Bremserstraße 79 · 67063 Ludwigshafen am Rhein · Germany
Fax: +49-621-503-4537 ·
eMail: medclu@t-online.de