Rapid Communication
Copyright ©2007 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 28, 2007; 13(40): 5371-5375
Published online Oct 28, 2007. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i40.5371
Colorectal neoplasm: Magnetic resonance colonography with fat enema-initial clinical experience
Shuai Zhang, Jun-Wei Peng, Qiang-Ying Shi, Feng Tang, Min-Guo Zhong
Shuai Zhang, Jun-Wei Peng, Feng Tang, Min-Guo Zhong, Department of Radiology, Fudan University Cancer Hospital; Depatment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Qiang-Ying Shi, Department of Surgery, Fudan University Cancer Hospital; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the work.
Supported by the Developing Research Programs of Science and Technology Commission Foundation of Shanghai, No. 34958038
Correspondence to: Dr. Jun-Wei Peng, Department of Radiology, Fudan University Cancer Hospital; Depatment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong'an, Shanghai 200032, China. weijunpeng@yahoo.com
Telephone: +86-21-64433384 Fax: +86-21-64433384
Received: June 4, 2007
Revised: July 20, 2007
Accepted: August 13, 2007
Published online: October 28, 2007
Abstract

AIM: To assess Magnetic resonance colonography with fat enema as a method for detection of colorectal neoplasm.

METHODS: Consecutive twenty-two patients underwent MR colonography with fat enema before colonoscopy. T1-weighted three-dimensional fast spoiled gradient-echo with inversion recovery sequence was acquired with the patient in the supine position before and 75 s after Gadopentetate Dimelumine administration. Where by, pre and post MR coronal images were obtained with a single breath hold for about 20 s to cover the entire colon. The quality of MR colonographs and patients' tolerance to fat contrast medium was investigated. Colorectal neoplasms identified by MR colonography were compared with those identified on colonoscopy and sensitivity of detecting the lesions was calculated accordingly.

RESULTS: MR colonography with fat enema was well tolerated without sedation and analgesia. 120 out of 132 (90.9%) colonic segments were well distended and only 1 (0.8%) colonic segment was poor distension. After contrast enhancement scan, mean contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) value between the normal colonic wall and lumen was 18.5 ± 2.9 while mean CNR value between colorectal neoplasm and lumen was 20.2 ± 3.1. By Magnetic resonance colonography, 26 of 35 neoplasms (sensitivity 74.3%) were detected. However, sensitivity of MRC was 95.5% (21 of 22) for neoplasm larger than 10 mm and 55.6% (5 of 9) for 5-10 mm neoplasm.

CONCLUSION: MR colonography with fat enema and T1-weighted three-dimensional fast spoiled gradient-echo with inversion recovery sequence is feasible in detecting colorectal neoplasm larger than 10 mm.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance colonography; Contrast-to-noise ratio; Virtual endoscopy; Colorectal neoplasm; Fat contrast medium