分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
3.0 T和1.0 T MRI评估克罗恩病活动性的研究
朱震亚 朱炯 李磊 龚红霞 许建荣

朱震亚,朱炯,李磊,等. 3.0 T和1.0 T MRI评估克罗恩病活动性的研究.磁共振成像, 2012, 3(6): 440-445. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2012.06.008.


[摘要] 目的 比较3.0 T和1.0 T MRI对评估活动性克罗恩病的诊断价值。材料与方法 临床确诊为克罗恩病的患者66例,其中36例行3.0 T MRI,30例行1.0 T MRI,根据肠壁异常增厚、肠壁异常强化、肠腔狭窄、"木梳征"、肠系膜淋巴结增大、瘘道、溃疡及脓肿等MRI表现作为诊断标准,用3.0 T和1.0 T MRI分别评估克罗恩病患者病变的活动性并进行评分,≥4分则诊断为活动期克罗恩病,以临床诊断为金标准进行比较。对测量肠壁厚度的一致性检验采用双样本t检验,各种征象(显示率)的一致性检验采用χ2检验。结果 36例行3.0 T MRI的克罗恩病患者中临床诊断为活动性克罗恩病25例;3.0 T MRI共评估216组肠段,其中76组肠段肠壁增厚,平均厚度为(3.22±0.93) mm;增强后脂肪抑制T1WI异常强化肠段62组肠段(62/76);7例发现肠段狭窄及狭窄后扩张,20例发现"木梳征",9例发现肠系膜淋巴结肿大,2例发现溃疡,4例发现瘘道;36例患者评分为(3.22±1.27)分,其中18例患者评分>4分;3.0 T MRI评估活动性克罗恩病的敏感度为68.0% (17/25),特异度为90.9% (10/11),阳性预测值为94.4 % (17/18),阴性预测值为55.6% (10/18)。30例行1.0 T MRI的克罗恩病患者中临床诊断为活动性克罗恩病22例;1.0 T MRI共评估180组肠段,其中69组肠段肠壁增厚,平均厚度为(3.61±0.83) mm,异常强化肠段23段(23/69);11例发现肠段狭窄及狭窄后扩张,6例发现"木梳征",3例发现肠系膜淋巴结肿大,3例发现溃疡;30例患者评分为(3.13±1.25)分,其中9例患者的评分>4分;1.0 T MRI评估活动性克罗恩病的敏感度为47.4 % (9/19),特异度为100% (11/11),阳性预测值为100% (9/9),阴性预测值为52.4% (11/21)。在受累及肠段平均厚度以及肠壁异常强化、"木梳征"的显示率方面,3.0 T MRI优于1.0 T MRI (P值均<0.05)。结论 3.0 T MRI在评估克罗恩病活动性方面要优于1.0 T MRI,主要表现在能更好显示肠壁增厚、肠壁异常强化及"木梳征"
[Abstract] Objective: To investigate whether 3.0 T MRI can offer better diagnostic value over 1.0 T MRI for evaluating the disease activity of Crohn's disease (CD).Materials and Methods: 36 patients were examined with a 3.0 T MR system and 30 patients were examined with a 1.0 T MR system to evaluate the activity of CD compared with clinical diagnosis based on manifesting wall thickening, increased enhancement, stenosis, "comb sign," enlarged lymph node, fistula, ulceration, and abscess. Clinical diagnosis is the "gold standard" . MRI morphology of each patient was scored by two radiologists. If the score of a patient was ≥4, the patient was diagnosed as active CD. The statistical analysis of bowel wall thickness measurement was independent-samples t-test. The statistical analysis of the display rate of the MRI morphology was chi-square test.Results: The clinical reference standard revealed 25 in 3.0 T MR group (25/36) and 22 in 1.0 T MRI group (22/30) to have active disease at the time of presentation. The mean wall thickness of 76 disorder segments out of 216 measured by 3.0 T MRI was (3.22±0.93) mm. On the 3.0 T MR T1-weighted fat-saturated images, 62 of 76 disorder segment were detect significant enhancement. In 3.0 T MR group, stenosis with prestenotic dilatation was seen in 7, "comb sign" was evident in 20 cases, enlarged mesareic lymph node was seen in 9 cases, ulceration was detected in 2 cases, fistula was detected in 4 cases. Among the 36 patients examined with 3.0 T MR, the mean of the scores was 3.22±1.27. Eighteen cases had a score ≥4, thus indicating active CD. Sensitivity of 3.0 T MR for the depiction of the disease activity of CD was 68.0% (17/25), specificity was 90.9% (10/11), positive predictive value was 94.4% (17/18), negative predictive value was 55.6% (10/18). The mean wall thickness of 69 disorder segments out of 180 measured by 1.0 T MRI was (3.61±0.83) mm. On the 1.0 T MR T1-weighted fat-saturated images, 23 of 69 disorder segment were detect significant enhancement. In 1.0 T MR group, stenosis with prestenotic dilatation was seen in 11 cases, "comb sign" was evident in 6 cases, enlarged mesareic lymph node was seen in 3 cases, ulceration was detected in 3 cases. Among the 30 patients examined with 1.0 T MR, the mean of the scores was 3.13±1.25. 9 cases had a score ≥4, thus indicating active CD. Sensitivity of 1.0 T MR for the depiction of the disease activity of CD was 47.4% (9/19), specificity was 100% (11/11), positive predictive value was 100% (9/9), negative predictive value was 52.4% (11/21). There was significant difference in measuring bowel wall thickness, showing bowl wall enhancement and "comb" sign between 3.0 T and 1.0 T MRI (P<0.05), which showed that 3.0 T was better than 1.0 T MRI.Conclusion: Our results have shown that 3.0 T MRI is more effective in differentiating active and remissive CD than 1.0 T MRI based on measuring bowel thickness, showing increased bowel wall enhancement and the "comb sign" .
[关键词] 克罗恩病;疾病严重程度指数;磁共振成像
[Keywords] Crohn's disease;Severity of illness index;Magnetic resonance imaging

朱震亚 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海 200127

朱炯* 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海 200127

李磊 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海 200127

龚红霞 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海 200127

许建荣 上海交通大学医学院附属仁济医院放射科,上海 200127

通讯作者:朱炯,E-mail:billzhu49@hotmail.com


基金项目: 国家自然基金项目 编号:81171325 上海市科委医学引导项目 编号:114119a0900
收稿日期:2012-05-02
接受日期:2012-07-01
中图分类号:R445.2; R574 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2012.06.008
朱震亚,朱炯,李磊,等. 3.0 T和1.0 T MRI评估克罗恩病活动性的研究.磁共振成像, 2012, 3(6): 440-445. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2012.06.008.

       克罗恩病(Crohn's disease)是炎症性肠病中最多见的一种疾病[1],由于对活动期与缓解期克罗恩病患者的治疗原则截然不同,所以对其活动性的准确评估显得尤为重要。

       近年来,随着影像技术的不断发展,MRI和CT能够很好地显示肠壁及肠腔周围的异常改变,很多研究已经证明他们能够很好地评估克罗恩病的活动性[2,3]。MRI具有良好的软组织对比度,能够多平面重建,同时又没有辐射损伤,所以较CT而言,越来越体现出其在评估克罗恩病活动性方面的优越性[4]。先前的研究都是运用1.0 T或者1.5 T的MRI进行,结果提示MRI能很好地显示克罗恩病患者受累肠段的异常改变[3, 5,6,7]。本研究的目的就是比较3.0 T的高场强MRI与1.0 T MRI在评估克罗恩病活动性方面的诊断价值。

1 材料与方法

1.1 临床资料

       搜集仁济医院2006年1月5日至2008年7月22日期间确诊为克罗恩病的66例患者,其中36例接受了3.0 T MRI检查(Intera, Philips Medical Systems, The Netherlands),男22例,年龄24~60岁,平均(39.5±8.5)岁;女14例,年龄22~53岁,平均(34.9±2.4)岁。30例接受了1.0 T MRI的检查(Philips Gyroscan T10-NT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands),男18例,年龄24~60岁,平均(36.5±4.5)岁;女12例,年龄21~52岁,平均(32.9±2.3)岁。临床诊断为活动期克罗恩病的标准包括:(1)克罗恩活动指数(Crohn disease activity index, CDAI) >150;(2)内窥镜检查提示活动性肠炎;(3) C反应蛋白(C-reactive protein, CRP)和(或)红细胞沉降率(erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ESR)升高。

1.2 MR检查方法

       所有的患者于检查前12 h开始禁食,并服用20%甘露醇250 ml用于清洁肠道。检查前40 min,让患者口服6.25%甘露醇1500 ml用于充盈肠道。先期的研究表明,这种高渗性的溶液能使小肠肠段更好地充盈,同时也是一种很好的肠腔内双相对比剂,即在T2WI上显示为高信号,而在T1WI上显示为低信号[8,9]。为了抑制患者的肠道蠕动,于检查前5 min给予患者肌注东莨菪碱20 mg (排除相关禁忌证)。

       3.0 T MRI使用相控体部表面线圈,扫描序列:(1)横断面、冠状面:T2WI TR 1273 ms,TE 80 ms,层厚5 mm,视野(FOV) 455 mm×455 mm;单次激发自旋回波序列(SSh-TSE) TR 1592 ms,TE 80 ms,层厚4 mm,FOV 485 mm×485 mm;敏感度编码(SENSitivity Encoding, SENSE) TR 1592 ms,TE 80 ms,层厚4 mm,FOV 485 mm×485 mm;矩阵512×512;反转角90° ;间隔0。(2)冠状面、矢状面:脂肪抑制T2WI TR 1446 ms,TE 84 ms,FOV 485 mm×485 mm;单次激发(SSh)序列TR 1446 ms,TE 84 ms,FOV 485 mm×455 mm;频谱衰减反转复苏(spectral attenuated inversion recovery, SPAIR) TR 1446 ms,TE 84 ms,FOV 485 mm× 455 mm;SENSE TR 1446 ms,TE 84 ms,FOV 485 mm×455 mm;层厚4 mm,矩阵512×512,反转角90° ,间隔0。(3) 3D扫描:T1WI/T1高分辨率各向同性容积成像(T1 high resolution isotropic volume examination, THRIVE)、SENSE TR 3.25 ms,TE 1.51 ms,层厚2 mm,矩阵512×512,反转角15°,间隔0,FOV 485 mm×485 mm。在注射对比剂前先进行一次扫描,静脉团注Gd-DTPA (0.1 ml/kg) 40 s后再连续重复4次扫描。扫描后图像进行3D重建。

       1.0 T MR的扫描使用体部表面线圈,并运用呼吸门控,使用的序列:(1)横断面、冠状面、矢状面:T2WI TR 1800 ms,TE 100 ms,层厚4 mm;视野(FOV) 450 mm×450 mm/485 mm×485 mm/485 mm×350 mm)。(2)冠状面:脂肪抑制T2WI/频谱预饱和反转恢复(spectral presaturation with inversion recovery, SPIR) TR 1800 ms;TE 100 ms,层厚4 mm;矩阵512×512;反转角90° ;间隔0;FOV 485 mm×485 mm。(3) 3D扫描:脂肪抑制T1WI/频谱预饱和反转恢复(spectral presaturation with inversion recovery, SPIR) TR 575 ms;TE 12 ms,层厚4 mm;矩阵512×512;反转角90° ;间隔0;FOV 450 mm×450 mm。在注射对比剂前先进行一次扫描,静脉团注Gd-DTPA (0.1 ml/kg) 40 s后再连续重复4次扫描。

       所有的图像传送至后处理工作站(Advantage Windows 4.3, GE Healthcare, WI),由2名具有10~ 12年腹部影像诊断经验的放射科医师进行独立双盲法读片诊断,评估患者的克罗恩病的活动性。

1.3 MR影像诊断标准

       参考文献[5],[6],[7],[8],根据本组患者具体情况,制定MR影像学诊断活动性克罗恩病的评判标准:(1)受累肠段肠壁异常增厚、肠腔狭窄及肠壁异常强化≥ 2处,记1分(图1)。(2)受累肠段的平均肠壁厚度≥ 3 mm,记1分(图2)。(3)受累肠段增强后T1WI的信号强度大于同期扫描的肝脏信号强度,记1分(图1)。(4)受累肠段有肠系膜血管异常明显强化的表现,即出现"木梳征"(因肠系膜直小血管的增多,肠系膜脂肪结构模糊,增多的小血管排列如木梳),记1分(图1)。(5)受累肠段出现狭窄后扩张的表现,记1分(图3)。(6)受累肠段相邻肠系膜有直径>10 mm的淋巴结,记1分(图2)。(7)受累肠段有脓肿、瘘道、溃疡其中任何一个征象,记1分(图3图4)。

       2名放射科医师根据以上7个方面对克罗恩病患者的MR影像资料进行独立读片评估及评分。如果评分≥4分,则诊断为活动期克罗恩病;如果评分< 4分,则诊断为缓解期克罗恩病。每例患者的最终评分取2名医师评分的平均值。对各种征象显示率的统计标准:只要有1名医师发现某一征象即表示MRI检查能显示此征象。

图1  女,岁,克罗恩病患者,3.0 T MR增强后冠状面压脂T1WI示远端回肠肠壁增厚并见明显强化(黑箭),其信号强度大于髂动脉(白箭),同时可见典型"木梳征"(白箭头)
图2  男,35岁,克罗恩病患者。3.0 T MR横断面T2WI/SSh/TE80示增大的淋巴结(白箭)及明显增厚肠壁(黑箭)
图3  男,42岁,克罗恩病患者。1.0 T MR冠状面T2WI/TSE/TE100序列扫描显示狭窄肠段以及溃疡(黑箭)
图4  男,25岁,克罗恩病患者。3.0 T MR冠状面T2WI/sSSh/SPAIR序列扫描显示窦道(白箭头)以及相邻的肠壁增厚的直肠(黑箭)
图5  A:男,25岁,克罗恩病患者。3.0 T MR冠状面T2WI/SSh/TE80扫描显示增厚的肠壁达5 mm (白箭)。B:男,33岁,克罗恩病患者。1.0 T MR冠状面T2WI/TSE/TE100扫描示增厚的肠壁达5 mm (白箭)
图6  A:男,31岁,克罗恩病患者。3.0 T MR横断面动态增强压脂T1WI示肠壁增厚(黑箭),其信号强度与腹主动脉相似(白箭)。B:女,43岁,克罗恩病患者。1.0 T MR横断面增强压脂T1WI示肠壁增厚(黑箭),其信号强度与髂动脉相似(黑箭头)
Fig. 1  A 45-year-old female with Crohn's disease. At distal ileum, coronal Gd-enhanced fat-suppressed T1WI showed obvious enhancement of bowel wall (black arrow) on 3.0 T MRI. The signal was as high as external iliac artery (white arrow). The "comb sign" (arrows) was well seen.
Fig. 2  A 35-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At mesentery, axial T2WI/SSh/TE80 image showed the enlarged lymph node (short axis > 1 cm) (white arrow) on 3.0 T MR. And the ileal bowel thickening (black arrow) was also well seen.
Fig. 3  A 42-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At jejunum, coronal T2WI/TSE/TE100 image showed two small ulcers (black arrow) with stenosis on 1.0 T MRI.
Fig. 4  A 25-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At rectum, sagittal T2WI/sSSh/SPAIR image showed the fistulous tract (white arrow) adjoined with the involved bowel (black arrow) on 3.0 T MRI.
Fig. 5  A: A 25-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At distal ileum, coronal T2WI/SSh/TE80 image showed the thickened (5 mm) bowel wall (white arrow) on 3.0 T MRI. B: A 33-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At distal ileum, coronal T2WI/TSE/TE 100 image showed the thickened (5 mm) bowel wall (white arrow) on 1.0 T MRI.
Fig. 6  A: A 31-year-old male with Crohn's disease. At ileum, axial contrast-enhanced DYN/3D/T1WI/fat-suppressed image showed bowel wall enhancement (black arrow) and the signal was as high as that of the aorta (white arrow) on 3.0 T MRI. B: A 43-year-old female with Crohn's disease. At ileum, axial contrast-enhanced T1WI/fat-suppressed image showed bowel wall enhancement (black arrow) and the signal was as high as that of the iliac artery (arrows) on 1.0 T MRI.

1.4 统计学分析

       以临床的评估(基于CDAI评分,内窥镜检查及实验室化验)作为金标准,分别统计3.0 T及1.0 T MRI评估活动性克罗恩病的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。其中敏感度=真阳性/(真阳性+假阴性);特异度=真阴性/(真阴性+假阳性);阳性预测值=真阳性/(真阳性+假阳性);阴性预测值=(真阴性/真阴性+假阴性)。1.0 T与3.0 T MRI测量肠壁厚度的一致性检验采用双样本t检验,1.0 T与3.0 T MRI显示各种征象(显示率)的一致性检验采用χ2检验,P<0.05为有统计学意义。所有的资料运用统计软件SPSS 11.5进行统计分析。

2 结果

2.1 临床评估

       行3.0 T MRI的36例克罗恩病患者中,25例患者临床诊断为活动性克罗恩病,其中22例患者的CDAI评分>150分,20例患者的内窥镜活检提示活动性克罗恩病,18例患者的实验室检查结果提示活动性克罗恩病(其中C反应蛋白升高16例,血沉升高13例)。行1.0 T MRI的30例克罗恩病患者中,22例患者临床诊断为活动性克罗恩病,其中18例患者的CDAI评分>150分,16例患者的内窥镜活检提示活动性克罗恩病,16例患者的实验室检查结果提示活动性克罗恩病(其中C反应蛋白升高15例,血沉升高11例)。

2.2 MRI评估

       MR影像表现见图1,图2,图3,图4,图5,图6。将每例患者的MR影像资料分为6组肠段进行评估,36例行3.0 T MRI的患者一共评估了216组肠段,其中76组发现异常的肠段的平均厚度为(3.22±0.93) mm (图1图2);76组肠段中增强后脂肪抑制T1WI显示异常强化62组(62/76;图1图6)。30例行1.0 T MRI的患者一共评估了180组肠段,其中69组发现异常的肠段的平均厚度为(3.61±0.83) mm,69组中增强后脂肪抑制T1WI显示异常强化23组(23/69)。3.0 T MRI测量的肠壁厚度及显示肠壁的异常强化与1.0 T MRI比较,差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)。

       36例行3.0 T MRI的患者中7例发现肠段狭窄及狭窄后扩张,20例发现"木梳征"(图1),9例发现肠系膜淋巴结肿大(图2),2例发现溃疡,4例发现瘘道(图4),均未发现脓肿。30例行1.0 T MRI的患者中11例发现肠段狭窄及狭窄后扩张(图3),6例发现"木梳征",3例发现肠系膜淋巴结肿大,3例发现溃疡(图3),均未发现瘘道和脓肿。3.0 T MRI显示的"木梳征"与1.0 T MRI比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

       根据本研究MR影像资料综合评分标准,行3.0 T MRI的36例患者评分为(3.22±1.27)分,其中18例患者评分>4分,评估为活动性克罗恩病;与临床金标准诊断为活动性克罗恩病患者25例比较,3.0 T MRI诊断活动性克罗恩病假阳性1例,假阴性8例,真阳性17例,真阴性10例,敏感度为68.0%,特异度为90.9%,阳性预测值为94.4%,阴性预测值为55.6%。行1.0 T MRI的30例患者评分为(3.13±1.25)分,其中9例患者的评分>4分,评估为活动性克罗恩病,与临床金标准诊断为活动性克罗恩病患者19例比较,1.0 T MRI诊断活动性克罗恩病假阳性0例,假阴性10例,真阳性9例,真阴性11例,敏感度为47.4%,特异度为100%,阳性预测值为100%,阴性预测值为52.4%。

3 讨论

       临床上对Crohn活动性的评估常规运用CDAI、相关实验室检查和内窥镜活检,只要这3项评价指标中有2项提示为活动性,就可以诊断为活动性克罗恩病。但是,由于有些急性期和缓解期的症状有重复,药物的治疗也使得某些症状变得不典型,而内窥镜又是一种创伤性检查手段,所以常规的克罗恩病活动性评价体系仍旧存在很大局限性,临床上需要一种更加准确有效的克罗恩病活动性评价方法。

       影像检查是一种有效的评价克罗恩病活动性的方法。CT相对于MRI来说,空间分辨率更高,扫描时间更短,能够更好显示肠壁的细微结构,从而为诊断提供更准确的信息。但是,CT的最大局限性在于它的X射线。接受CT检查的克罗恩病患者必须接受大剂量的X线照射,而X线的照射加上克罗恩病患者服用的某些药物,如甲氨蝶啶的协同作用,将增加这些患者罹患恶性肿瘤的可能性[10]。MRI相对于CT而言,能更好地显示软组织对比度,而且没有射线所造成的损害,因此MRI在评估克罗恩病的活动性方面越来越显示出优越性[4]

       3.0 T MRI是目前最新的影像诊断技术,并且仍旧在不断发展中。作为高场强的MRI,3.0 T比1.0 T具有更好的信噪比和空间分辨率,能够更好的显示病变,特别是细微结构的显示。随着场强的增高,各种伪影也显得突出(包括运动伪影和化学位移伪影),但是前期有些研究认为各种可能的伪影并没影响3.0 T MRI在腹部影像诊断的优越性[11]。但是这种伪影究竟是否会在3.0 T MRI对腹部管腔样脏器(如肠道)病变的诊断方面产生影响,目前还未发现相关研究。

       以往已有很多研究探讨了1.0 T及1.5 T MRI诊断活动性克罗恩病的价值[5,6,7],这些研究提示MRI能很好地显示克罗恩病患者受累肠段的异常改变,包括肠壁厚度改变、肠壁异常强化、肠段狭窄、肠系膜血管异常增多("木梳征")、肿大淋巴结、瘘管、溃疡和脓肿等。在本研究中,根据这些影像表现,笔者制定了MRI评估活动性克罗恩病的诊断标准,并根据这一标准,比较3.0 T及1.0 T MRI判断活动性克罗恩病的价值。结果显示,3.0 T MRI评估活动性克罗恩病敏感度(68.0%)要明显高于1.0 T MRI (47.4%),特异度(90.9%)略低于1.0 T MRI (100%)。在测量肠壁的厚度、显示肠壁的强化以及显示"木梳征"这一特殊征象方面,3.0 T MRI与1.0 T MRI的差异均具有统计学意义。

       肠壁的厚度是评判克罗恩病活动性的一个重要指标。3.0 T MRI具有更高的空间分辨率和更好的信噪比,能更好显示组织细微结构,所以测得的肠壁厚度也更准确。本研究结果显示,3.0 T MRI能更好显示肠壁的异常强化和"木梳征",其显示率要明显高于1.0 T MRI。这2个征象也是判断活动期和缓解期克罗恩病的重要指标。虽然某些纤维组织也会表现为强化明显,但在更多数情况下肠壁异常明显强化出现在活动性肠道炎症[4,5,6,7]。"木梳征"提示受累肠段充血,也是活动期肠道炎症的一个重要征象。有研究表明,在诊断活动性克罗恩病方面,MR增强后脂肪抑制的T1WI与CDAI显示了很好的相关性[5]。相对于1.0 T及1.5 T MRI,高场强的3.0 T MR的T1WI扫描时间更短,能更好的显示增强效果,并且3.0 T MRI有更好的信噪比和强化噪声比,所以在显示肠系膜血管方面,3.0 T MRI较1.0 T及1.5 T MRI有明显优越性,也就能更好显示肠壁异常明显强化和"木梳征"。本研究结果提示,3.0 T MRI在显示肠段狭窄、增大的淋巴结、瘘管、溃疡及脓肿方面没有明显优于1.0 T MRI。高场强的3.0 T MRI在提高了图像的信噪比和强化噪声比的同时,由于磁场不均匀性的提高,磁敏感效应和化学位移伪影也增多,所以在一定程度上影响了图像的质量,尤其是在显示腹部管腔样脏器的MR影像上,因为腹部管腔样脏器有蠕动等影响,MR图像对磁敏感效应和化学位移伪影更为敏感。而前期基于1.0 T及1.5 T MRI的研究也认为,在显示瘘道、溃疡、脓肿方面,MRI与其他影像诊断方法,如CT和普通X线造影相比较是否具有优势还存在很大争议[12,13,14,15]

       总之,本研究结果显示,3.0 T MRI在评价克罗恩病活动度方面优于1.0 T MRI。3.0 T MRI能更好显示增厚的肠壁、肠壁的异常强化和"木梳征",而这三方面也是MR影像诊断评价克罗恩病活动与否的重要征象。

[1]
Rutgeerts P, Diamond RH, Bala M, et al. Scheduled maintenance treatment with infliximab is superior to episodic treatment for the healing of mucosal ulceration associated with Crohn's disease. Gastrointest Endosc, 2006, 63 (3): 433-442.
[2]
Colombel JF, Solem CA, Sandborn WJ, et al. Quantitative measurement and visual assessment of ileal Crohn's disease activity by computed tomography enterography: correlation with endoscopic severity and C reactive protein. Gut, 2006, 55(11): 1561-1567.
[3]
Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Pelster G, et al. MR colonography in patients with incomplete conventional colonoscopy. Radiology, 2005, 234(2): 452-459.
[4]
Rimola J, Rodriguez S, Garcia-Bosch O, et al. Magnetic resonance for assessment of disease activity and severity in ileocolonic Crohn's disease. Gut, 2009, 58 (8): 1113-1120.
[5]
Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, et al. Assessment of Crohn's disease in the small bowel: prospective comparison of magnetic resonance enteroclysis with conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol, 2006, 16(12): 2817-2827.
[6]
Florie J, Wasser MN, Arts-Cieslik K, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the bowel wall for assessment of disease activity in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006, 186(5): 1384-1392.
[7]
Sempere GA, Martinez Sanjuan V, Medina Chulia E, et al. MRI evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005, 184 (6): 1829-1835.
[8]
Kuehle CA, Ajaj W, Ladd SC, et al. Hydro-MRI of the small bowel: effect of contrast volume, timing of contrast administration, and data acquisition on bowel distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol2006, 187(4): W375-W385.
[9]
Ajaj W, Lauenstein TC, Langhorst J, et al. Small bowel hydro-MR imaging for optimized ileocecal distension in Crohn's disease: should an additional rectal enema filling be performed? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005, 22(1): 92-100.
[10]
Jaffe TA, Gaca AM, Delaney S, et al. Radiation doses from small-bowel follow-through and abdominopelvicMDCT in Crohn's disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007, 189(5):1015-1022
[11]
Choi JY, Kim MJ, Chung YE, et al. Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: comparative review versus a 1.5-T system. Radiographics, 2008, 28:e30.
[12]
Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A, et al. Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn's disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut, 2005, 54(12):1721-1727.
[13]
Cronin CG, Lohan DG, DeLappe E, et al. Duodenal abnormalities at MR small-bowel follow-through. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 191(4): 1082-1092.
[14]
Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M, et al. Cross-sectional imaging in Crohn disease. Radiographics, 2004, 24(3): 689-702.
[15]
Schreyer AG, Gölder S, Scheibl K, et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance enteroclysis in combination with MRI colonography for whole bowel assessment in patients with Crohn's disease: first clinical experience. Inflamm Bowel Dis, 2005, 11(4):388-394.

上一篇 乳腺浸润性导管癌的3.0 T MRI诊断
下一篇 不同b值扩散加权成像鉴别上尿路肿瘤及炎症性病变的应用研究
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2