Small bowel Crohn’s disease: MR enteroclysis and capsule endoscopy compared to balloon-assisted enteroscopy

New modalities are available to visualize the small bowel in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of magnetic resonance enteroclysis (MRE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) to balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE) in patients with suspected or established CD of the small bowel. Consecutive, consenting patients first underwent MRE followed by CE and BAE. Patients with high-grade stenosis at MRE did not undergo CE. Reference standard for small bowel CD activity was a combination of BAE and an expert panel consensus diagnosis. Analysis included 38 patients, 27 (71%) females, mean age 36 (20–74) years, with suspected (n = 20) or established (n = 18) small bowel CD: 16 (42%) were diagnosed with active CD, and 13 (34%) by MRE with suspected high-grade stenosis, who consequently did not undergo CE. The reference standard defined high-grade stenosis in 10 (26%) patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value of MRE and CE for small bowel CD activity were 73 and 57%, 90 and 89%, 88 and 67%, and 78 and 84%, respectively. CE was complicated by capsule retention in one patient. MRE has a higher sensitivity and PPV than CE in small bowel CD. The use of CE is considerably limited by the high prevalence of stenotic lesions in these patients

Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study

To compare the diagnostic performance of imaging strategies with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomographic (CT) imaging in adult patients suspected of having appendicitis. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study initiation, and patients gave written informed consent. In a multicenter diagnostic performance study, adults suspected of having appendicitis were prospectively identified in the emergency department. Consenting patients underwent ultrasonography (US) and subsequent contrast-enhanced CT if US imaging yielded negative or inconclusive results. Additionally, all patients underwent unenhanced MR imaging, with the reader blinded to other findings. An expert panel assigned final diagnosis after 3 months. Diagnostic performance of three imaging strategies was evaluated: conditional CT after US, conditional MR imaging after US, and immediate MR imaging. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing findings with final diagnosis. Between March and September 2010, 229 US, 115 CT, and 223 MR examinations were performed in 230 patients (median age, 35 years; 40% men). Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 cases. Conditional and immediate MR imaging had sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of conditional CT, which resulted in 3% (three of 118; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 7%) missed appendicitis, and 8% (10 of 125; 95% CI: 4%, 14%) false-positives. Conditional MR missed appendicitis in 2% (two of 118; 95% CI: 0%, 6%) and generated 10% (13 of 129; 95% CI: 6%, 16%) false-positives. Immediate MR missed 3% (four of 117; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) appendicitis with 6% (seven of 120; 95% CI: 3%, 12%) false-positives. Conditional strategies resulted in more false-positives in women than in men (conditional CT, 17% vs 0%; P = .03; conditional MR, 19% vs 1%; P = .04), wherease immediate MR imaging did not. The accuracy of conditional or immediate MR imaging was similar to that of conditional CT in patients suspected of having appendicitis, which implied that strategies with MR imaging may replace conditional CT for appendicitis detectio

Magnetic resonance imaging of the small bowel with the true FISP sequence: intra- and interobserver agreement of enteroclysis and imaging without contrast material

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without luminal contrast medium versus MR enteroclysis for evaluating small bowel pathology, to compare MRI and MRE findings per observer, and to compare these findings with those of an expert reader in order to determine the influence of luminal contrast medium on morphological evaluations. Conclusion: The use of luminal contrast medium bowel improves reliability for measuring bowel wall thickness and for the diagnosis and grading of obstruction when evaluating the small bowel. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserve

Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy

PURPOSE: To determine if training with direct feedback helps to improve the diagnostic performance of inexperienced readers in the detection of appendicitis on magnetic resonance (MR) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Nine radiologists and eight residents without experience in evaluating MR images for acute abdominal conditions evaluated a training set of images from 100 MR imaging examinations of patients suspected of having appendicitis and received direct feedback after each evaluation. An expert panel made a diagnosis of appendicitis in 45 patients and an alternative diagnosis in 55 patients on the basis of histopathologic examination and follow-up. Readers recorded two diagnoses: the first after viewing images from conventional MR sequences (half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement and true fast imaging with steady-state precession) and the second after viewing diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images. Reader sensitivity and specificity were calculated per set of 25 cases. RESULTS: The average reader sensitivity for detecting appendicitis improved significantly after training (0.82 vs 0.92, P = .003); the average specificity improved nonsignificantly (0.82 vs 0.88, P = .10). Sensitivity for radiologists increased from 0.81 in the first set of 25 cases to 0.91 in the last set, and specificity improved from 0.82 to 0.85. For residents, sensitivity increased from 0.82 to 0.94, and specificity increased from 0.82 to 0.91. Sensitivity improved from 0.80 to 0.87 (P < .001) in all readings combined when DW images were read in addition to conventional MR images. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy of inexperienced readers in the evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedback, and the addition of DW images improved reader sensitivity

Acute Appendicitis on Abdominal MR Images: Training Readers to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy

Purpose: To determine if training with direct feedback helps to improve the diagnostic performance of inexperienced readers in the detection of appendicitis on magnetic resonance (MR) images. Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. Nine radiologists and eight residents without experience in evaluating MR images for acute abdominal conditions evaluated a training set of images from 100 MR imaging examinations of patients suspected of having appendicitis and received direct feedback after each evaluation. An expert panel made a diagnosis of appendicitis in 45 patients and an alternative diagnosis in 55 patients on the basis of histopathologic examination and follow-up. Readers recorded two diagnoses: the first after viewing images from conventional MR sequences (half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement and true fast imaging with steady-state precession) and the second after viewing diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images. Reader sensitivity and specificity were calculated per set of 25 cases. Results: The average reader sensitivity for detecting appendicitis improved significantly after training (0.82 vs 0.92, P = .003); the average specificity improved nonsignificantly (0.82 vs 0.88, P = .10). Sensitivity for radiologists increased from 0.81 in the first set of 25 cases to 0.91 in the last set, and specificity improved from 0.82 to 0.85. For residents, sensitivity increased from 0.82 to 0.94, and specificity increased from 0.82 to 0.91. Sensitivity improved from 0.80 to 0.87 (P <.001) in all readings combined when DW images were read in addition to conventional MR images. Conclusion: Diagnostic accuracy of inexperienced readers in the evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedback, and the addition of DW images improved reader sensitivity. (c) RSNA, 201

Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance of MRI in children with suspected appendicitis

To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound in children with suspected appendicitis. In a single-centre diagnostic accuracy study, children with suspected appendicitis were prospectively identified at the emergency department. All underwent abdominal ultrasound and MRI within 2 h, with the reader blinded to other imaging findings. An expert panel established the final diagnosis after 3 months. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three imaging strategies: ultrasound only, conditional MRI after negative or inconclusive ultrasound, and MRI only. Significance between sensitivity and specificity was calculated using McNemar's test statistic. Between April and December 2009 we included 104 consecutive children (47 male, mean age 12). According to the expert panel, 58 patients had appendicitis. The sensitivity of MRI only and conditional MRI was 100% (95% confidence interval 92-100), that of ultrasound was significantly lower (76%; 63-85, P  < 0.001). Specificity was comparable among the three investigated strategies; ultrasound only 89% (77-95), conditional MRI 80% (67-89), MRI only 89% (77-95) (P values 0.13, 0.13 and 1.00). In children with suspected appendicitis, strategies with MRI (MRI only, conditional MRI) had a higher sensitivity for appendicitis compared with a strategy with ultrasound only, while specificity was comparable. • In children, MRI has a higher sensitivity for appendicitis than ultrasound. • Ultrasound followed by MRI in negative or inconclusive findings is accurate. • The tolerance for ultrasound and MRI in children is comparable. • MRI can be performed in children in an emergency settin

MRI features associated with acute appendicitis

To identify MRI features associated with appendicitis. Features expected to be associated with appendicitis were recorded in consensus by two expert radiologists on 223 abdominal MRIs in patients with suspected appendicitis. Nine MRI features were studied: appendix diameter >7 mm, appendicolith, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration, peri-appendiceal fluid, absence of gas in the appendix, appendiceal wall destruction, restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall, lumen or focal fluid collections. Appendicitis was assigned as the final diagnosis in 117/223 patients. Associations between imaging features and appendicitis were evaluated with logistic regression analysis. All investigated features were significantly associated with appendicitis in univariate analysis. Combinations of two and three features were associated with a probability of appendicitis of 88 % and 92 %, respectively. In patients without any of the nine features, appendicitis was present in 2 % of cases. After multivariate analysis, only an appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall were significantly associated with appendicitis. The probability of appendicitis was 96 % in their presence and 2 % in their absence. An appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall have the strongest association with appendicitis on MRI. • An enlarged appendix, fat infiltration and restricted diffusion are associated with appendicitis. • One such feature on MRI gives an 88 % probability of appendicitis. • Two features in combination give a probability of appendicitis of 94 %. • Combinations of three features give a probability of appendicitis of 96 %. • The absence of these features almost rules out appendicitis (2 %

Accuracy and interobserver agreement between MR-non-expert radiologists and MR-experts in reading MRI for suspected appendicitis

To compare accuracy and interobserver agreement between radiologists with limited experience in the evaluation of abdominal MRI (non-experts), and radiologists with longer MR reading experience (experts), in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis. MR imaging was performed in 223 adult patients with suspected appendicitis and read independently by two members of a team of eight MR-inexperienced radiologists, who were trained with 100 MR examinations previous to this study (non-expert reading). Expert reading was performed by two radiologists with a larger abdominal MR experience (>500 examinations) in consensus. A final diagnosis was assigned after three months based on all available information, except MRI findings. We estimated MRI sensitivity and specificity for appendicitis and for all urgent diagnoses separately. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. Urgent diagnoses were assigned to 147 of 223 patients; 117 had appendicitis. Sensitivity for appendicitis was 0.89 by MR-non-expert radiologists and 0.97 in MR-expert reading (p=0.01). Specificity was 0.83 for MR-non-experts versus 0.93 for MR-expert reading (p=0.002). MR-experts and MR-non-experts agreed on appendicitis in 89% of cases (kappa 0.78). Accuracy in detecting urgent diagnoses was significantly lower in MR-non-experts compared to MR-expert reading: sensitivity 0.84 versus 0.95 (p <0.001) and specificity 0.71 versus 0.82 (p=0.03), respectively. Agreement on urgent diagnoses was 83% (kappa 0.63). MR-non-experts have sufficient sensitivity in reading MRI in patients with suspected appendicitis, with good agreement with MR-expert reading, but accuracy of MR-expert reading was highe