4.8 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance colonography for the evaluation of disease activity and severity in ulcerative colitis: a prospective study

期刊

GUT
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 1566-1572

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303240

关键词

Ulcerative Colitis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Endoscopy; Imaging; Ibd

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Sanidad [PI07/90253]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) for the evaluation of disease activity and severity in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) using endoscopy as the reference standard. Methods Fifty patients with UC underwent colonoscopy and MRC for the evaluation of disease activity. All patients were prospectively and consecutively included. Endoscopic activity was evaluated globally and on a segment basis using the modified Baron score (MBS), and also classified as absent, mild to moderate (inflammation without ulcers) or severe (presence of ulceration). MRC parameters evaluated in each segment were: wall thickness, pre- and post-contrast wall signal intensity, relative contrast enhancement (RCE), mural oedema, ulcers, enlarged lymph nodes and the comb sign. Results Independent predictors for endoscopic activity on a segment basis were RCE (p=0.006), presence of oedema (p=0.003), enlarged lymph nodes (p<0.001) and the comb sign (p<0.001). A segmental simplified MRC index (MRC-S) 1 detected endoscopic inflammation with high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 87%, specificity 88%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.95; p<0.001). MRC-S index 2 detected severe lesions with high sensitivity (83%) and specificity (82%) with an AUC of 0.91 (p<0.001). The MRC-S index strongly correlated with the MBS (r=0.81, p<0.001) and with the subjective assessment of the radiologists for the evaluation of disease severity (r=0.77, p<0.001). Conclusions MRC has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of disease activity and severity in UC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据