Colonoscopy detects significantly more flat adenomas than 3-tesla magnetic resonance colonography: a pilot trial

Background and study aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide, and several efforts have been made to reduce its occurrence or severity. Although colonoscopy is considered the gold standard in CRC prevention, it has its disadvantages: missed lesions, bleeding, and perforation. Furthermore, a high number of patients undergo this procedure even though no polyps are detected. Therefore, an initial screening examination may be warranted. Our aim was to compare the adenoma detection rate of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) with that of optical colonoscopy.

Patients and methods: A total of 25 patients with an intermediate risk for CRC (17 men, 8 women; mean age 57.6, standard deviation 11) underwent MRC with a 3.0-tesla magnet, followed by colonoscopy. The endoscopist was initially blinded to the results of MRC and unblinded immediately after examining the distal rectum. Following endoscopic excision, the size, anatomical localization, and appearance of all polyps were described according to the Paris classification.

Results: A total of 93 lesions were detected during colonoscopy. These included a malignant infiltration of the transverse colon due to gastric cancer in 1 patient, 28 adenomas in 10 patients, 19 hyperplastic polyps in 9 patients, and 45 non-neoplastic lesions. In 5 patients, no lesion was detected. MRC detected significantly fewer lesions: 1 adenoma (P = 0.001) and 1 hyperplastic polyp (P = 0.004). The malignant infiltration was seen with both modalities. Of the 28 adenomas, 23 (82 %) were 5 mm or smaller; only 4 adenomas 10 mm or larger (14 %) were detected.

Conclusion: MRC does not detect adenomas sufficiently independently of the location of the lesion. Even advanced lesions were missed. Therefore, colonoscopy should still be considered the current gold standard, even for diagnostic purposes.

^* These authors contributed equally.

^** These authors contributed equally.

• References

• 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 2 Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2345-2357
• 3 van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343-350
• 4 Regula J, Rupinski M, Kraszewska E et al. Colonoscopy in colorectal-cancer screening for detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1863-1872
• 5 Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 638-658
• 6 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
• 7 Leung WK, Lam WWM, Wu JCY et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99: 102-108
• 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: 1738-1743
• 9 Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al. Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2006; 238: 143-149
• 10 Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC et al. Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 2007; 56: 1079-1085
• 11 Florie J, Jensch S, Nievelstein RAJ et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with optical colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Radiology 2007; 243: 122-131
• 12 Saar B, Meining A, Beer A et al. Prospective study on bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography in comparison with conventional colonoscopy. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 235-241
• 13 Zijta F, Bipat S, Stoker J. Magnetic resonance (MR) colonography in the detection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review of prospective studies. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1031-1046
• 14 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-S43
• 15 Graser A, Melzer A, Lindner E et al. Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 743-750.e742
• 16 Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1095-1105
• 17 Leufkens AM, van Oijen MGH, Vleggaar FP et al. Factors influencing the miss rate of polyps in a back-to-back colonoscopy study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 470-475
• 18 Solon JG, Al-Azawi D, Hill A et al. Colonoscopy and computerized tomography scan are not sufficient to localize right-sided colonic lesions accurately. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e267-e272
• 19 Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H et al. Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: 1460-1467.e1462
• 20 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: 2191-2200
• 21 Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K et al. Comparison of standard vs high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: e260-e266
• 22 Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Jansen L et al. Reduced risk of colorectal cancer up to 10 years after screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 709-717
• 23 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
• 24 Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-857
• 25 Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Harford WV et al. Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2007; 133: 1077-1085
• 26 Schreiner MA, Weiss DG, Lieberman DA. Proximal and large hyperplastic and nondysplastic serrated polyps detected by colonoscopy are associated with neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1497-1502
• 27 Heitman SJ, Ronksley PE, Hilsden RJ et al. Prevalence of adenomas and colorectal cancer in average risk individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1272-1278
• 28 Martínez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
• 29 de Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, van Leerdam ME et al. Systematic literature review and pooled analyses of risk factors for finding adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 560-574