Magnetic resonance enterography is increasingly utilized for assessment of luminal Crohn's disease activity. The Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity and the London Index are the most commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials. We assessed the reliability of these indices and several additional items. A consensus process clarified scoring conventions and identified additional items based on face validity. Four experienced radiologists evaluated 50 images in triplicate, in random order, at least 1 month apart, using a central image management system. Intra- and interrater reliability were assessed by calculating and comparing intraclass correlation coefficients. Intrarater intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence intervals) for the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity, London, and London "extended" indices and a visual analogue scale were 0.89 (0.84 to 0.91), 0.87 (0.83 to 0.90), 0.89 (0.85 to 0.92), and 0.86 (0.81 to 0.90). Corresponding interrater intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.71 (0.61 to 0.77), 0.67 (0.55 to 0.75), 0.70 (0.61 to 0.76), and 0.71 (0.62 to 0.77). Reliability for each index was greatest in the terminal ileum and poorest in the rectum. All 3 indices were highly correlated with the visual analogue scale; 0.79 (0.71 to 0.85), 0.78 (0.71 to 0.84), and 0.79 (0.72 to 0.85) for the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity, London, and the London "extended" indices, respectively. "Substantial" interrater reliability was observed for all 3 indices. Future studies should assess responsiveness to treatment in order to confirm their utility as evaluative indices in clinical trials and clinical practice.
The management of patients with IBD requires evaluation with objective tools, both at the time of diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease, to determine the location, extension, activity and severity of inflammatory lesions, as well as, the potential existence of complications. Whereas endoscopy is a well-established and uniformly performed diagnostic examination, the implementation of radiologic techniques for assessment of IBD is still heterogeneous; variations in technical aspects and the degrees of experience and preferences exist across countries in Europe. ECCO and ESGAR scientific societies jointly elaborated a consensus to establish standards for imaging in IBD using magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and including also other radiologic procedures such as conventional radiology or nuclear medicine examinations for different clinical situations that include general principles, upper GI tract, colon and rectum, perineum, liver and biliary tract, emergency situation, and the postoperative setting. The statements and general recommendations of this consensus are based on the highest level of evidence available, but significant gaps remain in certain areas such as the comparison of diagnostic accuracy between different techniques, the value for therapeutic monitoring, and the prognostic implications of particular findings.
To demonstrate the anatomy of the female pelvic floor with endovaginal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.Ten healthy nulliparous volunteers (age, 22-26 years) underwent MR imaging with an endovaginal coil. Findings on endovaginal MR images in the volunteers were correlated with findings on endovaginal MR images and cross-sectional anatomic slices obtained in three cadavers.The endovaginal coil was well tolerated by all volunteers. Pelvic floor structures such as the pelvic diaphragm and the urogenital diaphragm were well depicted. Previously undescribed urethral supporting structures--the periurethral and paraurethral ligaments--were visualized. The zonal anatomy of the urethra was clearly visible. The endovaginal MR imaging findings in the volunteers correlated with the endovaginal MR findings and gross anatomy in the cadavers.Endovaginal MR imaging clearly demonstrates the anatomy of the female pelvic floor and urethra.
To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain.Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection.Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands.1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock.All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent.Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain.661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity.Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.
PURPOSE: To assess agreement between endoanal sonography, endoanal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and surgery in depiction and classification of fistula in ano. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients with nonspecific, cryptoglandular fistula in ano were studied. The fistulas were classified with endoanal sonography, endoanal MR imaging, and surgery. Agreement between the modalities was also evaluated. RESULTS: Classification of fistulas was possible in 17 of 28 patients (61%) with sonography, in 25 of 28 (89%) with MR imaging, and in 26 of 28 (93%) with surgery. Concordance between endoanal sonography and MR imaging occurred in 46% of the cases (kappa = 0.27, poor agreement); between sonography and surgery in 36% (kappa = 0.09, no agreement); and between MR imaging and surgery in 64% (kappa = 0.43, moderate agreement). CONCLUSION: Endoanal MR imaging more accurately allows depiction and classification of fistula in ano than endoanal sonography.
This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
