Advertisement

Preoperative evaluation of small bowel complications in Crohn’s disease: comparison of diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MR imaging

  • M. Barat
  • C. Hoeffel
  • M. Bouquot
  • A. S. Jannot
  • R. Dautry
  • M. Boudiaf
  • K. Pautrat
  • R. Kaci
  • M. Camus
  • C. Eveno
  • M. Pocard
  • P. Soyer
  • A. Dohan
Magnetic Resonance
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of MR enterography (MRE) using combined T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced (CE) sequences with that of combined T2- and diffusion-weighted (DW) sequences for the detection of complex enteric Crohn’s disease (CD).

Materials

Thirty-eight patients who underwent surgery for CD complications and preoperative MRE from 2011 to 2016 were included. MRE examinations were blindly analyzed independently by one junior and one senior abdominal radiologist for the presence of fistula, stenosis and abscesses. During a first reading session, T2-weighted images (WI), steady-state sequences and DW-MRE were reviewed (set 1). During a separate distant session, T2-WI, True-FISP and CE-MRE were reviewed (set 2). Performance of each reader was evaluated by comparison with the standard of reference established using intraoperative and pathological findings.

Results

Forty-eight fistulas, 43 stenoses and 11 abscesses were found. For the senior radiologist, sensitivity for the detection of fistula, stenosis and abscess ranged from 80% to 100% for set 1 and 88% to 100% for set 2 and specificity ranged from 56% to 70% for set 1 and 53% to 93% for set 2, with no significant difference between the sets (p = 0.342–0.429). For the junior radiologist, sensitivity ranged from 53% to 63% for set 1 and 64% to 88% for set 2 and specificity ranged from 0% to 25% for set 1 and 17% to 40% for set 2 (p = 0.001 and 0.007, respectively).

Conclusion

For a senior radiologist, DW-MRE has similar sensitivity as CE-MRE for the detection of CD complications. For a junior radiologist, CE-MRE yields the best results compared with DW-MRE.

Key Points

• For experienced readers, DWI has similar diagnostic capability as contrast-enhanced MR imaging for the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease complications.

• For senior radiologists, gadolinium chelate injection could be waived for the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease complications.

• The interpretation of DWI for Crohn’s disease complications requires some experience.

Keywords

Crohn’s disease Magnetic resonance imaging Comparative studies Diffusion MRI 

Abbreviations

CD

Crohn’s disease

CE

Contrast-enhanced

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

HASTE

Half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo

MRE

Magnetic resonance enterography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NA

Non applicable

NPV

Negative predictive value

PACS

Picture archiving and communication system

PPV

Positive predictive value

SD

Standard deviation

TNF

Tumor necrosis factor

TP

True positive

True-FISP

True fast imaging with steady-state precession

VIBE

Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination

WI

Weighted imaging

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is P. Soyer, MD, PhD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and Biometry

Statistical analysis was performed by an expert senior statistician (Dr. AS Jannot)

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical Approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnosis method

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Torres J, Mehandru S, Colombel JF, Peyrin-Biroulet L (2017) Crohn’s disease. Lancet 389:1741–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Molodecky NA, Soon IS, Rabi DM et al (2012) Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inflammatory bowel diseases with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology 142:46–54 e42 quiz e30Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pariente B, Cosnes J, Danese S et al (2011) Development of the Crohn's disease digestive damage score, the Lemann score. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17:1415–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barral M, Dohan A, Allez M et al (2016) Gastrointestinal cancers in inflammatory bowel disease: an update with emphasis on imaging findings. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 97:30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hristova L, Soyer P, Hoeffel C et al (2013) Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel diseases: CT features with pathological correlation. Abdom Imaging 38:421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goyer P, Alves A, Bretagnol F, Bouhnik Y, Valleur P, Panis Y (2009) Impact of complex Crohn's disease on the outcome of laparoscopic ileocecal resection: a comparative clinical study in 124 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 52:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harb WJ (2015) Crohn's Disease of the Colon, Rectum, and Anus. Surg Clin North Am 95(1195-1210):viGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malgras B, Soyer P, Boudiaf M et al (2012) Accuracy of imaging for predicting operative approach in Crohn's disease. Br J Surg 99:1011–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoddard PB, Ghazi LJ, Wong-You-Cheong J, Cross RK, Vandermeer FQ (2015) Magnetic resonance enterography: state of the art. Inflamm Bowel Dis 21:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Assche G, Dignass A, Panes J et al (2010) The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease: Definitions and diagnosis. J Crohns Colitis 4:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zappa M, Stefanescu C, Cazals-Hatem D et al (2011) Which magnetic resonance imaging findings accurately evaluate inflammation in small bowel Crohn's disease? A retrospective comparison with surgical pathologic analysis. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17:984–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pola S, Santillan C, Levesque BG, Feagan BG, Sandborn WJ (2014) An overview of magnetic resonance enterography for Crohn's disease. Dig Dis Sci 59:2040–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erden A, Ünal S, Akkaya HE et al (2017) MR Enterography in Crohn's disease complicated with enteroenteric fistula. Eur J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    You-Ling Shyu J, Chick JF, Adackapara CA, Adduci AJ (2016) Urachal-colonic fistula: MR imaging and MDCT features. Diagn Interv Imaging 97:105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dohan A, Eveno C, Oprea R et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the diagnosis of abscess complicating fistula-in-ano: preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 24:2906–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monnier L, Dohan A, Amara N et al (2017) Anoperineal disease in hidradenitis suppurativa: MR imaging distinction from perianal Crohn's disease. Eur Radiol 27:4100–4109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dohan A, Taylor S, Hoeffel C et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted MRI in Crohn's disease: Current status and recommendations. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:1381–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seo N, Park SH, Kim KJ et al (2016) MR enterography for the evaluation of small-bowel inflammation in Crohn disease by using diffusion-weighted imaging without intravenous contrast material: a prospective noninferiority study. Radiology 278:762–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sinha R, Rajiah P, Ramachandran I, Sanders S, Murphy PD (2013) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the gastrointestinal tract: technique, indications, and imaging findings. Radiographics 33:655–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tielbeek JA, Ziech ML, Li Z et al (2014) Evaluation of conventional, dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted MRI for quantitative Crohn's disease assessment with histopathology of surgical specimens. Eur Radiol 24:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmid-Tannwald C, Agrawal G, Dahi F, Sethi I, Oto A (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI: role in detecting abdominopelvic internal fistulas and sinus tracts. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cavusoglu M, Duran S, Sozmen Ciliz D et al (2017) Added value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of perianal fistula. Diagn Interv Imaging 98:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olchowy C, Cebulski K, Łasecki M et al (2017) The presence of the gadolinium-based contrast agent depositions in the brain and symptoms of gadolinium neurotoxicity - A systematic review. PLoS One 12:e0171704CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soyer P, Dohan A, Patkar D, Gottschalk A (2017) Observational study on the safety profile of gadoterate meglumine in 35,499 patients: The SECURE study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:988–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seastedt KP, Trencheva K, Michelassi F et al (2014) Accuracy of CT enterography and magnetic resonance enterography imaging to detect lesions preoperatively in patients undergoing surgery for Crohn's disease. Dis Colon Rectum 57:1364–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt S, Chevallier P, Bessoud B et al (2007) Diagnostic performance of MRI for detection of intestinal fistulas in patients with complicated inflammatory bowel conditions. Eur Radiol 17:2957–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taylor SA, Avni F, Cronin CG et al (2017) The first joint ESGAR/ESPR consensus statement on the technical performance of cross-sectional small bowel and colonic imaging. Eur Radiol 27:2570–2582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fiorino G, Bonifacio C, Peyrin-Biroulet L et al (2011) Prospective comparison of computed tomography enterography and magnetic resonance enterography for assessment of disease activity and complications in ileocolonic Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baik J, Kim SH, Lee Y, Yoon JH (2017) Comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging for evaluating perianal fistulas. Clin Imaging 44:16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshizako T, Wada A, Takahara T et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI for evaluating perianal fistula activity: feasibility study. Eur J Radiol 81:2049–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rimola J, Planell N, Rodríguez S et al (2015) Characterization of inflammation and fibrosis in Crohn's disease lesions by magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Gastroenterol 110:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li XH, Sun CH, Mao R et al (2017) Diffusion-weighted MRI enables to accurately grade inflammatory activity in patients of ileocolonic Crohn's disease: results from an observational study. Inflamm Bowel Dis 23:244–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nguyen TL, Soyer P, Barbe C et al (2013) Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in pelvic abscesses. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Norris DG, Niendorf T, Leibfritz D (1994) Health and infarcted brain tissues studied at short diffusion times: the origins of apparent restriction and the reduction in apparent diffusion coefficient. NMR Biomed 7:304–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M et al (1999) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted MRI with echo-planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chan JH, Tsui EY, Luk SH et al (2001) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver: distinguishing hepatic abscess from cystic or necrotic tumor. Abdom Imaging 26:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M (1986) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 161:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Padhani AR, Chenevert TL et al (2015) Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1190–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yantiss RK, Odze RD (2006) Diagnostic difficulties in inflammatory bowel disease pathology. Histopathology 48:116–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Nawano S et al (2006) Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 239:122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oto A, Schmid-Tannwald C, Agrawal G et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of abdominopelvic abscesses. Emerg Radiol 18:515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lu Y, Jin H, Genant HK (2003) On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations. Stat Med 22:3029–3044CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Barat
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Hoeffel
    • 3
  • M. Bouquot
    • 2
    • 4
  • A. S. Jannot
    • 5
    • 6
  • R. Dautry
    • 1
  • M. Boudiaf
    • 1
  • K. Pautrat
    • 4
  • R. Kaci
    • 7
  • M. Camus
    • 8
  • C. Eveno
    • 2
    • 4
    • 9
  • M. Pocard
    • 2
    • 4
    • 9
  • P. Soyer
    • 1
    • 2
    • 10
  • A. Dohan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 10
  1. 1.Department of Abdominal and Interventional ImagingHôpital Cochin, AP-HPParisFrance
  2. 2.UMR INSERM 965, Hôpital LariboisièreParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyHôpital Robert-DebréReimsFrance
  4. 4.Department of Digestive and Oncologic SurgeryHôpital Lariboisière, AP-HPParis cedex 10France
  5. 5.INSERM-UMRS 1138 Team 22, Cordeliers Research Center, Paris Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  6. 6.Department of Medical Informatics and Public HealthEuropean George Pompidou Hospital, AP-HPParisFrance
  7. 7.Department of Pathology, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HPParisFrance
  8. 8.Department of GastroenterologyHôpital Saint-Antoine (AP-HP), Sorbonne University, Pierre et Marie CurieParisFrance
  9. 9.Université Sorbonne-Paris Cité, Paris-DiderotParisFrance
  10. 10.Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris-DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations