Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 4/2010

01-12-2010

Magnetic resonance colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with Lynch syndrome gene mutation

Authors: Eu Jin Lim, Christopher Leung, Alex Pitman, Damien L. Stella, Gregor Brown, Masha Slattery, Kaye Marion, Finlay Macrae

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Lynch syndrome gene carriers have a 50–80% risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines recommend yearly colonoscopy, with associated procedure-related risks. Magnetic resonance colonography (MRC) was evaluated as a non-invasive alternative for CRC screening in this high-risk population. Adult Lynch syndrome gene carriers underwent both screening procedures on the same day. MRI radiologists read the scans and rated image quality. Endoscopists performed colonoscopy unaware of MRC findings until after procedure completion. If lesions were detected, their number, size and location were noted. Post-procedure, patients compared discomfort and inconvenience of MRC and colonoscopy on a visual analogue scale. Thirty patients were recruited. 83% of the MRC scans were of adequate to good quality. MRC detected three lesions in three patients (70, 36, 17 mm). All 3 were independently detected on colonoscopy, excised and found to be CRC. MRC failed to detect a 3 mm CRC found on colonoscopy. CRC prevalence was 13%. Colonoscopy detected a further 30 polyps, all <10 mm. Of these, 17 were hyperplastic polyps and 10 normal mucosa. Colonoscopy had a false positive rate of 32% as defined by histology. MRC failed to detect any polyp <10 mm. Mean patient discomfort scores were 20% for MRC and 68% for colonoscopy, P = 0.003. Mean patient inconvenience scores were 54% for MRC and 52% for colonoscopy, P = 0.931. MRC was reliable in detecting large polyps, potentially CRC. However MRC currently has poor sensitivity in detecting small polyps, limiting its utility in adenoma screening at this time. MRC was associated with less discomfort than CC.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Annie Yu HJ, Lin KM, Ota DM et al (2003) Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: preventive management. Cancer Treat Rev 29(6):461–470CrossRefPubMed Annie Yu HJ, Lin KM, Ota DM et al (2003) Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: preventive management. Cancer Treat Rev 29(6):461–470CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference DeFrancisco J (2003) Diagnosis and management of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 58(3):390–408CrossRefPubMed DeFrancisco J (2003) Diagnosis and management of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 58(3):390–408CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Chung DC, Rustgi AK (2003) The hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: genetics and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 138(7):560–570PubMed Chung DC, Rustgi AK (2003) The hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: genetics and clinical implications. Ann Intern Med 138(7):560–570PubMed
4.
5.
go back to reference Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118(5):829–834CrossRefPubMed Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118(5):829–834CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 60(9):980–989CrossRefPubMed Purkayastha S, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T et al (2005) Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 60(9):980–989CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365(9456):305–311PubMed Rockey DC, Paulson E, Niedzwiecki D et al (2005) Analysis of air contrast barium enema, computed tomographic colonography, and colonoscopy: prospective comparison. Lancet 365(9456):305–311PubMed
8.
go back to reference Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Kivisaari A, Kivisaari L et al (2007) Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Fam Cancer 6(1):135–140CrossRefPubMed Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Kivisaari A, Kivisaari L et al (2007) Utility of computed tomographic colonography in surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Fam Cancer 6(1):135–140CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291(14):1713–1719CrossRefPubMed Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC et al (2004) Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy) a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 291(14):1713–1719CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference De Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G et al (2002) Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families. Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1588–1594CrossRefPubMed De Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G et al (2002) Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families. Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1588–1594CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJE et al (2003) Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Intern Med J 33:355–359CrossRefPubMed Viiala CH, Zimmerman M, Cullen DJE et al (2003) Complication rates of colonoscopy in an Australian teaching hospital environment. Intern Med J 33:355–359CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
go back to reference Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119(2):300–304CrossRefPubMed Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al (2000) Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 119(2):300–304CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2006) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238(1):143–149CrossRefPubMed Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al (2006) Colorectal polyps: detection with dark-lumen MR colonography versus conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 238(1):143–149CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S et al (2000) Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 216(2):383–388PubMed Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S et al (2000) Colonic masses: detection with MR colonography. Radiology 216(2):383–388PubMed
16.
go back to reference Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738–1743CrossRefPubMed Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al (2003) Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 52:1738–1743CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Yusuf E, Florie J, Nio CY et al. (2009) Incidental extracolonic findings on bright lumen MR colonography in a population at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol Oct 15. Epub ahead of print Yusuf E, Florie J, Nio CY et al. (2009) Incidental extracolonic findings on bright lumen MR colonography in a population at increased risk for colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol Oct 15. Epub ahead of print
18.
go back to reference Achiam MP, Holst Andersen LP, Klein M et al (2009) Preoperative evaluation of synchronous colorectal cancer using MR colonography. Acad Radiol 16(7):790–797CrossRefPubMed Achiam MP, Holst Andersen LP, Klein M et al (2009) Preoperative evaluation of synchronous colorectal cancer using MR colonography. Acad Radiol 16(7):790–797CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC et al (2007) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 56(8):1079–1085CrossRefPubMed Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC et al (2007) Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut 56(8):1079–1085CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Saar B, Gschossmann JM, Bonel HM et al (2008) Evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Invest Radiol 43(8):580–586CrossRefPubMed Saar B, Gschossmann JM, Bonel HM et al (2008) Evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography at 3.0 Tesla regarding diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Invest Radiol 43(8):580–586CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Lauenstein TC, Saar B, Martin DR (2007) MR colonography: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15(3):395–402CrossRefPubMed Lauenstein TC, Saar B, Martin DR (2007) MR colonography: 1.5T versus 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15(3):395–402CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Magnetic resonance colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with Lynch syndrome gene mutation
Authors
Eu Jin Lim
Christopher Leung
Alex Pitman
Damien L. Stella
Gregor Brown
Masha Slattery
Kaye Marion
Finlay Macrae
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-010-9350-9

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Familial Cancer 4/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine