Search

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate interobserver agreement for small bowel ultrasound (SBUS) in newly diagnosed and relapsing Crohn's disease., Methods: A subset of patients recruited to a prospective trial comparing the diagnostic accuracy of MR enterography and SBUS underwent a second SBUS performed by one of a pool of six practitioners, who recorded the presence, activity and location of small bowel and colonic disease. Detailed segmental mural and extra-mural observations were also scored. Interobserver variability was expressed as percentage agreement with a construct reference standard, split by patient cohort, grouping disease as present or absent. Prevalence adjusted bias adjusted kappa (PABAK), and simple percentage agreement between practitioners, irrespective of the reference standard, were calculated., Results: Thirty-eight patients (11 new diagnosis, 27 relapse) were recruited from two sites. Overall percentage agreement for small bowel disease presence against the consensus reference was 82% (52-95% (95%CI)), kappa coefficient (κ) 0.64, (substantial agreement) for new diagnosis and 81%, κ 0.63 (substantial agreement) for the relapsing cohort. Agreement for colonic disease presence was 64%, κ 0.27 (fair agreement) in new diagnosis and 78%,κ 0.56 (moderate agreement) in the relapsing cohort. Simple agreement between practitioners was 84% and 87% for small bowel and colonic disease presence respectively. Practitioners agreed on small bowel disease activity in 24/27 (89%) where both identified disease. Kappa agreement for detailed mural observations ranged from κ 0.00 to 1.00., Conclusion: There is substantial practitioner agreement for small bowel disease presence in newly diagnosed and relapsing CD patients, supporting wider dissemination of enteric US.

Background: Magnetic resonance enterography and enteric ultrasonography are used to image Crohn's disease patients. Their diagnostic accuracy for presence, extent and activity of enteric Crohn's disease was compared., Objective: To compare diagnostic accuracy, observer variability, acceptability, diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography in newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease., Design: Prospective multicentre cohort study., Setting: Eight NHS hospitals., Participants: Consecutive participants aged ≥ 16 years, newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease or with established Crohn's disease and suspected relapse., Interventions: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was per-participant sensitivity difference between magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for small bowel Crohn's disease extent. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease extent, and sensitivity and specificity for small bowel Crohn's disease and colonic Crohn's disease presence; identification of active disease; interobserver variation; participant acceptability; diagnostic impact; and cost-effectiveness., Results: Out of the 518 participants assessed, 335 entered the trial, with 51 excluded, giving a final cohort of 284 (133 and 151 in new diagnosis and suspected relapse cohorts, respectively). Across the whole cohort, for small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity [80%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 86%] was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (70%, 95% CI 62% to 78%), with a 10% difference (95% CI 1% to 18%; p  = 0.027). For small bowel Crohn's disease extent, magnetic resonance enterography specificity (95%, 95% CI 85% to 98%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography specificity (81%, 95% CI 64% to 91%), with a 14% difference (95% CI 1% to 27%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (97%, 95% CI 91% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 84% to 96%), with a 5% difference (95% CI 1% to 9%). For small bowel Crohn's disease presence, magnetic resonance enterography specificity was 96% (95% CI 86% to 99%) and ultrasonography specificity was 84% (95% CI 65% to 94%), with a 12% difference (95% CI 0% to 25%). Test sensitivities for small bowel Crohn's disease presence and extent were similar in the two cohorts. For colonic Crohn's disease presence in newly diagnosed participants, ultrasonography sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 49% to 81%) was significantly greater than magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (47%, 95% CI 31% to 64%), with a 20% difference (95% CI 1% to 39%). For active small bowel Crohn's disease, magnetic resonance enterography sensitivity (96%, 95% CI 92% to 99%) was significantly greater than ultrasonography sensitivity (90%, 95% CI 82% to 95%), with a 6% difference (95% CI 2% to 11%). There was some disagreement between readers for both tests. A total of 88% of participants rated magnetic resonance enterography as very or fairly acceptable, which is significantly lower than the percentage (99%) of participants who did so for ultrasonography. Therapeutic decisions based on magnetic resonance enterography alone and ultrasonography alone agreed with the final decision in 122 out of 158 (77%) cases and 124 out of 158 (78%) cases, respectively. There were no differences in costs or quality-adjusted life-years between tests., Limitations: Magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography scans were interpreted by practitioners blinded to clinical data (but not participant cohort), which does not reflect use in clinical practice., Conclusions: Magnetic resonance enterography has higher accuracy for detecting the presence, extent and activity of small bowel Crohn's disease than ultrasonography does. Both tests have variable interobserver agreement and are broadly acceptable to participants, although ultrasonography produces less participant burden. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness are similar. Recommendations for future work include investigation of the comparative utility of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasonography for treatment response assessment and investigation of non-specific abdominal symptoms to confirm or refute Crohn's disease., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03982913., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Stuart A Taylor reports personal fees from Robarts Clinical Trials Inc. (London, ON, Canada) outside the submitted work. Simon Travis reports receiving fees for consultancy work and/or speaking engagements from the following: AbbVie Inc. (Chicago, IL, USA), Centocor Inc. (Horsham, PA, USA), Schering-Plough (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Bristol-Myers Squibb (New York, NY, USA), Chemocentryx Inc. (Mountain View, CA, USA), Cosmo Pharmaceuticals (Dublin, Ireland), Elan Pharma Inc. (Dublin, Ireland), Genentech Inc. (San Francisco, CA, USA), Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy), Merck & Co. Inc. (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Takeda UK Ltd (Woodburn Green, Buckinghamshire, UK), Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (Tokyo, Japan), PDL BioPharma (Nevada, NV, USA), Pfizer Inc. (San Francisco, CA, USA), Shire Pharmaceuticals UK (St Helier, Jersey), Glenmark Pharmaceuticals (Maharashtra, India), Synthon Biopharmaceuticals (Nijmegen, the Netherlands), NPS Pharmaceuticals (Bedminster, NJ, USA), Eli Lilly and Company (Indiana, IN, USA), Warner Chilcott Ltd, Proximagen Group Ltd (London, UK), VHsquared Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Topivert Pharma Ltd (London, UK), Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint-Prex, Switzerland), Celgene Corporation (Summit, NJ, USA), GlaxoSmithKline plc (Brentford, UK), Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), Biogen Inc. (Cambridge, MA, USA), Enterome SA (Paris, France), Immunocore Ltd (Oxford, UK), Immunometabolism/Third Rock Ventures (Boston, MA, USA), Bioclinica Inc. (Newtown, PA, USA), Boehringer Ingelheim GmBH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany), Gilead Sciences Inc. (Foster City, CA, USA), Grunenthal Ltd (Aachen, Germany), Janssen Pharmaceutica (Beerse, Belgium), Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland), Receptos Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA), Pharm-Olam International UK Ltd (Bracknell, UK), Sigmoid Pharma (Dublin, Ireland), Theravance Biopharma Inc. (Dublin, Ireland), Given Imaging Ltd (Yokneam Illit, Israel), UCB Pharma SA (Brussels, Belgium), Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland), Sanofi Aventis SA (Paris, France), Vifor Pharma (St Gallen, Switzerland), Abbott Laboratories Ltd (Chicago, IL, USA) and Procter and Gamble Ltd (Cincinnati, OH, USA). Simon Travis reports directorships of charities IBD2020 (Barnet, UK; UK 09762150), Cure Crohn’s Colitis (Sydney, Australia; ABN 85 154 588 717) and the Truelove Foundation (London, UK; UK 11056711). Simon Travis also reports receiving fees from the following for expert testimony work and/or royalties: Santarus Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA), Cosmo Technologies Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Tillotts Pharma AG, Wiley-Blackwell Inc. (Hoboken, NJ, USA), Elsevier Ltd (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and Oxford University Press (Oxford, UK). Simon Travis has received research grants from the following: AbbVie Inc., the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Eli Lilly and Company, UCB Inc. (Brussels, Belgium), Vifor Pharma, Norman Collisson Foundation (Bicester, UK), Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Schering-Plough, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Procter and Gamble Ltd, Warner Chilcott Ltd, Abbott Laboratories Ltd, PDL BioPharma Inc. (Incline Village, NV, USA), Takeda UK Ltd and the International Consortium for Health Care Outcomes Measurement. Ailsa Hart reports personal fees from AbbVie Inc., Atlantic Healthcare Ltd (Saffron Walden, UK), Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion Inc. (Incheon, South Korea), Dr Falk Pharma UK Ltd (Bourne End, UK), Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Pfizer Inc., Pharmacosmos A/S (Holbæk, Denmark), Shire Pharmaceuticals UK and Takeda UK Ltd, and non-financial support from Genentech Inc. Alastair Windsor reports personal fees from Takeda, grants from Allergan Inc. (Dublin, Ireland), personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from Cook Medical Inc. (Bloomington, IN, USA) and grants and personal fees from Bard Ltd (Crawley, UK) outside the submitted work. Andrew Plumb reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme outside the submitted work, grants from the NIHR Fellowships programme during the conduct of the study and honoraria for educational lectures delivered at events arranged by Acelity Inc. (Crawley, UK), Actavis Pharma Inc. (Parsippany-Troy Hills, NJ, USA), Dr Falk Pharma UK Ltd, Janssen-Cilag Ltd (High Wycombe, UK) and Takeda UK Ltd on the subject of inflammatory bowel disease. Ilan Jacobs reports share ownership in General Electric Company (Boston, MA, USA), which manufacturers and sells magnetic resonance imaging equipment. Charles D Murray reports personal fees from AbbVie Inc., Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp. and Janssen Pharmaceutica outside the submitted work. Antony Higginson reports personal fees from Toshiba Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) outside the submitted work. Steve Halligan reports non-financial support from iCAD Inc. (Nashua, NH, USA) outside the submitted work, and sat on the HTA commissioning board (2008–14). Stephen Morris reports Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Board membership (2014–18), HSDR Evidence Synthesis Sub Board membership (2016), HTA Commissioning Board membership (2009–13) and Public Health Research Board membership (2011–17).

Objectives: To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy., Methods: 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn's disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests., Results: Overall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort., Conclusions: MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden., Key Points: • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy. • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress. • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden.

Background: Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound are used to image Crohn's disease, but their comparative accuracy for assessing disease extent and activity is not known with certainty. Therefore, we did a multicentre trial to address this issue., Methods: We recruited patients from eight UK hospitals. Eligible patients were 16 years or older, with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease or with established disease and suspected relapse. Consecutive patients had MRE and ultrasound in addition to standard investigations. Discrepancy between MRE and ultrasound for the presence of small bowel disease triggered an additional investigation, if not already available. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for small bowel disease extent (correct identification and segmental localisation) against a construct reference standard (panel diagnosis). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN03982913, and has been completed., Findings: 284 patients completed the trial (133 in the newly diagnosed group, 151 in the relapse group). Based on the reference standard, 233 (82%) patients had small bowel Crohn's disease. The sensitivity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (80% [95% CI 72-86]) and presence (97% [91-99]) were significantly greater than that of ultrasound (70% [62-78] for disease extent, 92% [84-96] for disease presence); a 10% (95% CI 1-18; p=0·027) difference for extent, and 5% (1-9; p=0·025) difference for presence. The specificity of MRE for small bowel disease extent (95% [85-98]) was significantly greater than that of ultrasound (81% [64-91]); a difference of 14% (1-27; p=0·039). The specificity for small bowel disease presence was 96% (95% CI 86-99) with MRE and 84% (65-94) with ultrasound (difference 12% [0-25]; p=0·054). There were no serious adverse events., Interpretation: Both MRE and ultrasound have high sensitivity for detecting small bowel disease presence and both are valid first-line investigations, and viable alternatives to ileocolonoscopy. However, in a national health service setting, MRE is generally the preferred radiological investigation when available because its sensitivity and specificity exceed ultrasound significantly., Funding: National Institute of Health and Research Health Technology Assessment., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cross sectional Imaging plays an increasingly important role the diagnosis and management of Crohn's disease. Particular emphasis is placed on MRI and Ultrasound as they do not impart ionising radiation. Both modalities have reported high sensitivity for disease detection, activity assessment and evaluation of extra-luminal complications, and have positive effects on clinical decision making. International Guidelines now recommend MRI and Ultrasound in the routine management of Crohn's disease patients. This article reviews the current evidence base supporting both modalities with an emphasis on the key clinical questions. We describe current protocols, basic imaging findings and highlight areas in need of further research., Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 4 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1573-1588., (© 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)

The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether ultrasound (US)/US procedural simulation leads to improvement in US competence, particularly in the clinical setting. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and OVID were searched for relevant published articles between 1950 and April 2011. Fourteen articles of an initial 371 articles met the inclusion criteria. The eligible studies differed in terms of the study population, sample size, study design, US simulator used, and measured outcomes. Most of the studies demonstrated acquisition of knowledge and skills with suggestions of correlation with simulation training and improved performance in the same simulated environment. There is little compelling evidence based on published studies at present to support the widespread adoption of simulation-based medical education to improve clinical US competence.