M P Achiam | PubMed Health

PubMed2002

CT- and MR colonography.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the second most frequent cancer and adenomas are widely accepted as precursors to colorectal cancer. Diagnosis and removal of adenomas are recommended to reduce cancer incidence and mortality. The current diagnostic methods include sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Lately, CT- and MR colonography have emerged as non-invasive methods for colon imaging. METHODS: At present, CTC and MRC require bowel preparation. However, preliminary studies have been carried out without colon preparation. After the colon has been filled with air or contrast, the patient is scanned in the supine and prone positions. Data are then downloaded to a workstation for post processing and image-analysis. RESULTS: Results have shown a high sensitivity and specificity for polyps > or = 10 mm, comparable to the sensitivity of conventional colonoscopy and superior to double contrast barium enema. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential development in computer processing power, CT- and MR colonography holds the promise for future colon examination with the advantages of non-invasiveness, no need for sedation, and probably no bowel preparation. A major disadvantage, however, is the radiation dose during CT colonography. Future developments with the use of "intelligent" computers, better resolution and faster examinations will make CT and/or MR colonography realistic options to replace conventional diagnostic colonoscopy.

Adenoma↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Implementation of MR colonography.

BACKGROUND: MR colonography (MRC) is a promising method of examining the colon, but is limited to a few specialist centres. The purpose of this article was to describe the implementation of MRC with fecal tagging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients referred for conventional colonoscopy (CC) were offered MRC with fecal tagging before CC. Two days before MRC patients ingested an oral contrast agent. Before and after MRC and CC a number of questions were addressed. MR images were rated by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: In 6 months, 30 consecutive patients were included. The median time in the MR suite was 44 min, 23 min for the MRC examination and 9 min for the evaluation. The median time for CC was 32 min. Sixty-six percent of the patients preferred MRC as the future method of examination, 10% preferred CC, 21% had no preferences. Of the oral contrast agents, barium sulphate with ferumoxsil was significantly better than barium sulphate alone. CONCLUSION: The majority of the patients found MRC less unpleasant than CC and a majority would prefer MRC over CC as a future colon examination. MRC also appears to be less time consuming to the patients and medical personnel than CC with post-procedural monitoring.

Administration, Oral↗