Contrast- vs. non-contrast enhanced MR data sets for characterization of perianal fistulas
- 150 Downloads
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy between pre- and post-contrast MRI sequences in perianal fistulas using intra-operative findings as the gold standard.
Materials and methods
Retrospective analysis of 50 patients with a history of perianal fistula and MRI performed between January 2006 and January 2018 was performed. The inclusion criteria were patients who underwent MRI prior to surgery and had a detailed surgical report available. Pre- and post-contrast MR data sets were evaluated by two radiologists at two-week-intervals, assessed fistula type, internal/external opening, presence of abscess/secondary tracts, and confidence scores. The area under the curve (AUC) was used for comparison the diagnostic ability. The sensitivity and specificity were compared using the McNemar’s test.
The confidence scores in detecting perianal fistulas were significantly higher in the post-contrast MR data set (p < 0.003). The post-contrast MR data set had similar ability to classify perianal fistulas as combined T2-DWI and isolated T2 data sets in 49/50 cases. For internal/external opening, the post-contrast MR, combined T2-DWI, and isolated T2 data sets had 100% concordance with intra-operative reports. For perianal abscess, there was no significant difference in sensitivity or AUC value between the isolated T2 or combined T2-DWI data sets and post-contrast MR data set (p > 0.05). All MR data sets correctly identified secondary tracts in all 50 cases.
Although contrast-enhanced MR studies can improve a radiologist’s confidence, non-contrast MR studies had similar diagnostic efficacy in identifying perianal fistulas and their complications. Therefore, a non-contrast study may suffice in selected patients such as those with renal impairment.
KeywordPerianal fistula MRI Crohn’s disease Contrast agent
The authors thank Glenn Shingledecker for manuscript preparation.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was not funded.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Noting to disclose.
- 6.Morris J, Spencer JA, Ambrose NS (2000) MR imaging classification of perianal fistulas and its implications for patient management. RadioGraph 20:623–635. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.3.g00mc15623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D (2013) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270:834–841. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131669 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML, et al. (2015) Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom Imaging 40:134–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0197-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar