Advertisement

MR Colonography With Fecal Tagging

Barium vs. Barium Ferumoxsil

      Rationale and Objectives

      Both magnetic resonance (MR) and computed tomographic (CT) colonography are useful for colon examination. With sensitivities close to those for conventional colonoscopy (CC) for polyps, colonography has been proposed as an alternative to diagnostic CC. MR colonography (MRC) with fecal tagging may be a method of gaining further patient acceptance and widespread use, but the method has to be optimized. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality of a new contrast agent mixture and to validate a new method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents.

      Materials and Methods

      Twenty patients referred to CC underwent dark lumen MRC prior to the colonoscopy. Two groups of patients received two different oral contrast agents (barium sulfate and barium sulfate/ferumoxsil) as a laxative-free fecal tagging prior to the MRC. After MRC, the contrast agent was rated qualitatively (with the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio) and subjectively (using a visual analog scale [VAS]) by three different blinded observers.

      Results

      Evaluated both qualitatively and subjectively, the tagging efficiency of barium sulfate/ferumoxsil was significantly better (P < .05) than barium sulfate alone. The VAS method for evaluating the tagging efficiency of contrast agents showed a high correlation (observer II, r = 0.91) to the standard method using contrast-to-wall ratio and also a high interclass correlation (observer II and III = 0.89/0.85). MRC found 1 of 22 (5%) polyps <6 mm, 2 of 3 (67%) polyps 6−10 mm, and 2 of 2 (100%) polyps >10 mm.

      Conclusion

      MRC with fecal tagging using barium sulfate/ferumoxsil as contrast agent will give better overall assessment of the colon wall compared to barium sulfate alone. Furthermore, the VAS method of evaluating fecal tagging efficiency correlated with the standard method of calculating the contrast-to-wall ratio.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kronborg O.
        • Fenger C.
        • Olsen J.
        • Jorgensen O.D.
        • Sondergaard O.
        Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test.
        Lancet. 1996; 348: 1467-1471
        • Hardcastle J.D.
        • Chamberlain J.O.
        • Robinson M.H.
        • Moss S.M.
        • Amar S.S.
        • Balfour T.W.
        • et al.
        Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer.
        Lancet. 1996; 348: 1472-1477
        • Mandel J.S.
        • Bond J.H.
        • Church T.R.
        • Snover D.C.
        • Bradley G.M.
        • Schuman L.M.
        • et al.
        Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood.
        N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 1365-1371
        • Lauenstein T.
        • Holtmann G.
        • Schoenfelder D.
        • Bosk S.
        • Ruehm S.G.
        • Debatin J.F.
        MR colonography without colonic cleansing: A new strategy to improve patient acceptance.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177: 823-827
        • Papanikolaou N.
        • Grammatikakis J.
        • Maris T.
        • Lauenstein T.
        • Prassopoulos P.
        • Gourtsoyiannis N.
        MR colonography with fecal tagging: Comparison between 2D turbo FLASH and 3D FLASH sequences.
        Eur Radiol. 2003; 13: 448-452
        • Saar B.
        • Meining A.
        • Beer A.
        • Settles M.
        • Helmberger H.
        • Frimberger E.
        • et al.
        Prospective study on bright lumen magnetic resonance colonography in comparison with conventional colonoscopy.
        Br J Radiol. 2007; 80: 235-241
        • Ristvedt S.L.
        • McFarland E.G.
        • Weinstock L.B.
        • Thyssen E.P.
        Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2003; 98: 578-585
        • Svensson M.H.
        • Svensson E.
        • Lasson A.
        • Hellstrom M.
        Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: Prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease.
        Radiology. 2002; 222: 337-345
        • Weishaupt D.
        • Patak M.A.
        • Froehlich J.
        • Ruehm S.G.
        • Debatin J.F.
        Faecal tagging to avoid colonic cleansing before MRI colonography.
        Lancet. 1999; 354: 835-836
        • Ajaj W.
        • Pelster G.
        • Treichel U.
        • Vogt F.M.
        • Debatin J.F.
        • Ruehm S.G.
        • et al.
        Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: Comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology.
        Gut. 2003; 52: 1738-1743
        • Kuehle C.A.
        • Langhorst J.
        • Ladd S.C.
        • Zoepf T.
        • Nuefer M.
        • Grabellus F.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: A prospective cross sectional study in a screening population.
        Gut. 2007; 56: 1079-1085
        • Goehde S.C.
        • Descher E.
        • Boekstegers A.
        • Lauenstein T.
        • Kuhle C.
        • Ruehm S.G.
        • et al.
        Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: Accuracy and patient acceptance.
        Abdom Imaging. 2005; 30: 576-583
        • Achiam M.P.
        • Chabanova E.
        • Logager V.
        • Thomsen H.S.
        • Rosenberg J.
        Implementation of MR colonography.
        Abdom Imaging. 2007; 32: 457-462
        • Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
        The Basic Textbook of the European Magnetic Resonance Forum.
        4th ed. Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin/Vienna2001
        • Pickhardt P.J.
        • Choi J.R.
        • Hwang I.
        • Butler J.A.
        • Puckett M.L.
        • Hildebrandt H.A.
        • et al.
        Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 2191-2200
        • Cotton P.B.
        • Durkalski V.L.
        • Pineau B.C.
        • Palesch Y.Y.
        • Mauldin P.D.
        • Hoffman B.
        • et al.
        Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): A multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 1713-1719
        • Lauenstein T.C.
        • Debatin J.F.
        Magnetic resonance colonography with fecal tagging: An innovative approach without bowel cleansing.
        Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 13: 435-444

      Linked Article

      • Erratum
        Academic RadiologyVol. 16Issue 2
        • Preview
          MR Colonography With Fecal Tagging Barium vs. Barium Ferumoxsil. Acad Radiol 2008; 15:576-583.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF