Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2017
Can MR enterography screen for perianal disease in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
AlSabban Zehour, Carman Nicholas, Moineddin Rahim, Lo Ryan T, King Sebastian K, Langer Jacob C, Walters Thomas D, Griffiths Anne M, Church Peter C, Greer Mary-Louise C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pediatric Crohn's disease is associated with perianal disease (PAD). Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) assesses small bowel involvement in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD). Pelvic MRI (P-MRI) is the gold standard for assessing PAD.
PURPOSE: To determine if MRE can accurately detect PAD in PIBD, distinguishing perianal fistulae (PAF) from perianal abscesses (PAA), referenced against P-MRI.
STUDY TYPE: Retrospective.
POPULATION: Seventy-seven PIBD patients, 27 females (mean age 14.1 years), with P-MRI and MRE within 6 months.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T; P-MRI: sagittal fat suppressed (FS) T2 fast spin-echo (FSE), coronal short tau inversion recovery, axial T1 FSE, coronal and axial postcontrast FS T1 FSE; MRE: coronal balanced steady-state free-precession (SSFP), coronal cine SSFP, coronal and axial single-shot T2 FS, axial SSFP, coronal ultrafast 3D T1 -weighted gradient echo FS (3D T1 GE), axial diffusion-weighted imaging, coronal and axial postcontrast 3D T1 GE FS.
ASSESSMENT: Two radiologists independently, then by consensus, assessed randomized MRI exams, recording PAF number, location, and length; and PAA number, location, length, and volume. Sensitivity analysis used clinical disease as the gold standard, calculated separately for P-MRI and MRE.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparing MRE and P-MRI consensus data, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (P/NPV) were calculated. Inter- and intrareader reliability were assessed using kappa statistics.
RESULTS: P-MRI and MRE were paired, detecting PAD in 73 patients, PAF in 63, and PAA in 31 P-MRI. MRE sensitivities, specificities, PPV, and NPV were: PAD 82%, 100%, 100%, 23%; PAF 74%, 71%, 92%, 38%; PAA 51%, 85%, 69%, 72%; clinical 82%, 22%, 37%, 69%; clinical P-MRI 96%, 8%, 37%, 80%. MRE interreader agreement for PAD was moderate (kappa = 0.51 [0.29-0.73]), fair for PAF and PAA.
DATA CONCLUSION: Using a standard technique, MRE can detect PAD with high specificity and moderate sensitivity in PIBD, missing some PAF and small PAA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1638-1645.
PURPOSE: To determine if MRE can accurately detect PAD in PIBD, distinguishing perianal fistulae (PAF) from perianal abscesses (PAA), referenced against P-MRI.
STUDY TYPE: Retrospective.
POPULATION: Seventy-seven PIBD patients, 27 females (mean age 14.1 years), with P-MRI and MRE within 6 months.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5T and 3T; P-MRI: sagittal fat suppressed (FS) T2 fast spin-echo (FSE), coronal short tau inversion recovery, axial T1 FSE, coronal and axial postcontrast FS T1 FSE; MRE: coronal balanced steady-state free-precession (SSFP), coronal cine SSFP, coronal and axial single-shot T2 FS, axial SSFP, coronal ultrafast 3D T1 -weighted gradient echo FS (3D T1 GE), axial diffusion-weighted imaging, coronal and axial postcontrast 3D T1 GE FS.
ASSESSMENT: Two radiologists independently, then by consensus, assessed randomized MRI exams, recording PAF number, location, and length; and PAA number, location, length, and volume. Sensitivity analysis used clinical disease as the gold standard, calculated separately for P-MRI and MRE.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparing MRE and P-MRI consensus data, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (P/NPV) were calculated. Inter- and intrareader reliability were assessed using kappa statistics.
RESULTS: P-MRI and MRE were paired, detecting PAD in 73 patients, PAF in 63, and PAA in 31 P-MRI. MRE sensitivities, specificities, PPV, and NPV were: PAD 82%, 100%, 100%, 23%; PAF 74%, 71%, 92%, 38%; PAA 51%, 85%, 69%, 72%; clinical 82%, 22%, 37%, 69%; clinical P-MRI 96%, 8%, 37%, 80%. MRE interreader agreement for PAD was moderate (kappa = 0.51 [0.29-0.73]), fair for PAF and PAA.
DATA CONCLUSION: Using a standard technique, MRE can detect PAD with high specificity and moderate sensitivity in PIBD, missing some PAF and small PAA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1638-1645.