|
|
||||||||
Online Only |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (R.W.F.G., S.M.H., F.C, G.P.K.) and Gastroenterology and Hepatology (J.W.P., P.D.S.), Erasmus Medical Center, Dr Molenwaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and the Department of Radiology, University Hospital Parma, Parma, Italy (F.C.). Presented as an educational exhibit at the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received April 29, 2003, revision requested July 11, revision received and accepted August 13. Address correspondence to R.W.F.G. (e-mail: r.geenen@erasmusmc.nl).
In the last decade, computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) colonography, two new cross-sectional techniques for imaging of the colon, emerged. Both techniques show promising initial results in the detection of polyps equal to or greater than 1 cm in diameter in symptomatic patients. Imaging protocols are still mostly under development and prone to change. Both CT and MR colonography generate a large number of source images, which have to be read carefully for filling defects and, if intravenous contrast material is used, enhancing lesions. An important postprocessing technique is multiplanar reformatting, which allows the viewer to see potential lesions in an orientation other than that of the source images. Virtual endoscopy, a volume rendering technique that generates images from within the colon lumen, is used for problem solving. CT and MR colonography have potential advantages over colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema examination: multiplanar capabilities, detection of enhancing lesions that make the distinction between fecal residue and true lesion possible, and ante- and retrograde virtual colonoscopy. Currently, a number of studies suggest that patients have a preference for CT colonography over colonoscopy. Patients consider bowel cleansing the most uncomfortable part of any colon examination; hence, from the acceptance point of view, fecal tagging techniques are promising. Before CT and MR colonography can be implemented in daily practice, they must show approximately the same accuracy as colonoscopy for polyp detection in both symptomatic and screening patients.
© RSNA, 2003
Index Terms: Colon, MR, 75.121411, 75.121412, 75.121419, 75.12143 Colon, CT, 75.12115, 75.12117 Colon neoplasms, 75.30 Magnetic resonance (MR), three-dimensional, 75.12143, 75.12149
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. A Kuehle, J. Langhorst, S. C Ladd, T. Zoepf, M. Nuefer, F. Grabellus, J. Barkhausen, G. Gerken, and T. C Lauenstein Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population Gut, August 1, 2007; 56(8): 1079 - 1085. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. A. Kuehle, P. Veit, G. Antoch, F. Grabellus, P. Robert, T. Beyer, and C. U. Herborn Contrast-Enhanced Dark Lumen PET/CT and MR Colonography in a Rodent Polyp Model: Initial Results with Histopathologic Correlation Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 1045 - 1047. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. P. Mulhall, G. R. Veerappan, and J. L. Jackson Meta-Analysis: Computed Tomographic Colonography Ann Intern Med, April 19, 2005; 142(8): 635 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. A. Barish, J. A. Soto, and J. T. Ferrucci Consensus on Current Clinical Practice of Virtual Colonoscopy Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 786 - 792. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| RADIOGRAPHICS | RADIOLOGY | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |