Incomplete Conventional Colonoscopy: Magnetic Resonance Colonography in the Evaluation of the Proximal Colon

Background and Study Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate dark-lumen magnetic resonance (MR) colonography prospectively in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.
Patients and Methods: Thirty-two patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy underwent same-day dark-lumen MR colonography on the basis of a standard protocol. The depiction of colorectal diseases was assessed in the following colon segments: cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum. The reasons for incomplete colonoscopy included high-grade stenosis in 26 patients (four with occlusive cancer, 12 with fibrotic stenosis based on recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis, eight with Crohn’s-induced stenosis, and two with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug colonopathy), extreme patient intolerance in one patient, and technical challenges associated with an elongated colon in five patients. The results of MR colonography were compared with the findings of the initial conventional colonoscopy, the histopathological outcome, and follow-up colonoscopy when possible.
Results: All high-grade stenoses were confirmed on MR colonographic data sets. Of the 26 patients with high-grade stenosis, 19 underwent surgery with histopathological confirmation of the initial diagnosis. Follow-up colonoscopy was carried out in 14 patients with surgically treated high-grade stenosis. In six of these 14 patients, nine polyps identified at the initial MR colonography were confirmed and removed during a postoperative conventional colonoscopy. Two polyps (5 mm and 8 mm in diameter) identified on postoperative conventional colonoscopy had not been seen preoperatively at MR colonography. One polyp seen on MR colonography was not identified in the follow-up colonoscopy.
Conclusion: Dark-lumen MR colonography is a feasible and useful method of evaluating the entire colon in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.

References

• 1 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, Ho M N. et al . Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.  N Engl J Med. 1993;  329 1977-1981
• 2 Smith R A, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach A C. et al . American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer.  Ca Cancer J Clin. 2002;  52 8-22
• 3 Brown A L, Skehan S J, Greaney T. et al . Value of double-contrast barium enema performed immediately after incomplete colonoscopy.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;  176 943-945
• 4 Chong A, Shah J N, Levine M S. et al . Diagnostic yield of barium enema examination after incomplete colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2002;  223 620-624
• 5 Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, Vagli P. et al . Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2002;  223 615-619
• 6 Fenlon H M, McAneny D B, Nunes D P. et al . Occlusive colon carcinoma: virtual colonoscopy in the preoperative evaluation of the proximal colon.  Radiology. 1999;  210 423-428
• 7 Ajaj W, Lauenstein T C, Pelster G. et al . MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy.  Radiology. 2005;  234 452-459
• 8 Marshall J B, Barthel J S. The frequency of total colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation in the 1990 s.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;  39 518-520
• 9 Dafnis G, Granath F, Pahlman L. et al . The impact of endoscopists’ experience and learning curves and interendoscopist variation on colonoscopy completion rates.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 511-517
• 10 Gilbertsen V A. Proctosigmoidoscopy and polypectomy in reducing the incidence of rectal cancer.  Cancer. 1974;  34 (Suppl) 936-939
• 11 Gilbertsen V. Colon cancer screening: the Minnesota experience.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1980;  26 31S-32S
• 12 Culpan D G, Mitchell A J, Hughes S. et al . Double contrast barium enema sensitivity: a comparison of studies by radiographers and radiologists.  Clin Radiol. 2002;  57 604-607
• 13 Taylor S A, Halligan S, Saunders B P. et al . Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  181 913-921
• 14 Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D. et al . Prospective comparison of dark lumen MR colonography and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.  Radiology [in press].
• 15 Bat L, Neumann G, Shemesh E. The association of synchronous neoplasms with occluding colorectal cancer.  Dis Colon Rectum. 1985;  28 149-151
• 16 Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U. et al . Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology.  Gut. 2003;  52 1738-1743
• 17 Pradel J A, Adell J F, Taourel P. et al . Acute colonic diverticulitis: prospective comparative evaluation with US and CT.  Radiology. 1997;  205 503-512
• 18 Heverhagen J T, Zielke A, Ishaque N. et al . Acute colonic diverticulitis: visualization in magnetic resonance imaging.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;  19 1275-1277
• 19 Schreyer A G, Furst A, Agha A. et al . Magnetic resonance imaging based colonography for diagnosis and assessment of diverticulosis and diverticulitis.  Int J Colorectal Dis. 2004;  19 474-480