File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals

TitleMagnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals
Authors
Issue Date2004
PublisherNature Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.nature.com/ajg/index.html
Citation
American Journal Of Gastroenterology, 2004, v. 99 n. 1, p. 102-108 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is a new noninvasive diagnostic modality for colorectal cancer. However, the use of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm in average-risk individuals remains unknown. This study determined the performance and the patient's preference of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm. METHODS: Both high-risk (i.e., symptoms suggestive of colorectal neoplasm, positive fecal occult blood test, history of colorectal cancer in one or more first-degree relatives) and average-risk (i.e., asymptomatic individuals >50 yr) individuals were recruited. MRC was performed immediately prior to conventional colonoscopy (CC) by using air inflation without contrast. The finding on CC together with histology was used as a gold standard. Patients' pain and discomfort score were recorded immediately and 24 h after the procedure. They were also asked about their preferences for the two procedures. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients (79 average risk and 86 high risk) were recruited. Eight patients had incomplete MRC and one patient had failed CC. Of the remaining 156 patients, 4 were found to have colonic cancer and 31 were found to have 67 polyps. MRC correctly identified 3 cancers (sensitivity 75%, specificity 99.3%) and 4 patients with colonic polyps (sensitivity 12.9% and specificity 97.6%). Sensitivity of MRC tended to be lower in polyps <10 mm in size and in average-risk individuals. The mean procedure time of CC was significantly shorter than MRC (13.6 ± 6.7 vs 20.6 ± 2.7 min, p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in the pain and discomfort scores of the 2 procedures, 75% of patients preferred CC to MRC. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of MRC when used in the detection of colonic neoplasm in average-risk individuals is unsatisfactory.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162799
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 10.383
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 3.946
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLeung, WKen_US
dc.contributor.authorLam, WWMen_US
dc.contributor.authorWu, JCYen_US
dc.contributor.authorSo, NMCen_US
dc.contributor.authorFung, SSLen_US
dc.contributor.authorChan, FKLen_US
dc.contributor.authorTo, KFen_US
dc.contributor.authorYeung, DTKen_US
dc.contributor.authorSung, JJYen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-05T05:23:41Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-05T05:23:41Z-
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.citationAmerican Journal Of Gastroenterology, 2004, v. 99 n. 1, p. 102-108en_US
dc.identifier.issn0002-9270en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/162799-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) is a new noninvasive diagnostic modality for colorectal cancer. However, the use of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm in average-risk individuals remains unknown. This study determined the performance and the patient's preference of MRC in the detection of colorectal neoplasm. METHODS: Both high-risk (i.e., symptoms suggestive of colorectal neoplasm, positive fecal occult blood test, history of colorectal cancer in one or more first-degree relatives) and average-risk (i.e., asymptomatic individuals >50 yr) individuals were recruited. MRC was performed immediately prior to conventional colonoscopy (CC) by using air inflation without contrast. The finding on CC together with histology was used as a gold standard. Patients' pain and discomfort score were recorded immediately and 24 h after the procedure. They were also asked about their preferences for the two procedures. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients (79 average risk and 86 high risk) were recruited. Eight patients had incomplete MRC and one patient had failed CC. Of the remaining 156 patients, 4 were found to have colonic cancer and 31 were found to have 67 polyps. MRC correctly identified 3 cancers (sensitivity 75%, specificity 99.3%) and 4 patients with colonic polyps (sensitivity 12.9% and specificity 97.6%). Sensitivity of MRC tended to be lower in polyps <10 mm in size and in average-risk individuals. The mean procedure time of CC was significantly shorter than MRC (13.6 ± 6.7 vs 20.6 ± 2.7 min, p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in the pain and discomfort scores of the 2 procedures, 75% of patients preferred CC to MRC. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of MRC when used in the detection of colonic neoplasm in average-risk individuals is unsatisfactory.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherNature Publishing Group. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.nature.com/ajg/index.htmlen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Gastroenterologyen_US
dc.titleMagnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individualsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLeung, WK:waikleung@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLeung, WK=rp01479en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04008.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid14687150-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-1542702977en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-1542702977&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume99en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage102en_US
dc.identifier.epage108en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000188047200021-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLeung, WK=7201504523en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLam, WWM=13410486800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWu, JCY=7409253910en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSo, NMC=7003780596en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFung, SSL=7201970030en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChan, FKL=7202586434en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTo, KF=36785812800en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYeung, DTK=19838759600en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSung, JJY=35405352400en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats