Magnetic resonance colonography versus colonoscopy as a diagnostic investigation for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background: Colorectal cancer mostly arises from adenomatous polyp and the transition time to convert into carcinoma is around ten years. As the progress to adenocarcinoma is a slow process so, early detection and endoscope resection is claimed to be effective in decreasing incidence and mortality by colorectal cancer. MR colonography is a non-invasive method for evaluating entire colon. It can detect precancerous lesion, cancer and staging. It is non-invasive tool for screening. Acceptability of the patient is better for MR colonography.Methods: Present study is a prospective comparative evaluation of magnetic resonance colonography verses colonoscopy conducted in the Department of Radiology, Konaseema Institute of Medical Science, and other establishments from August 2015 to January 2018. The sample size was calculated to be 112. Specificity, sensitivity and predictive value were calculated by medical statistical software.Results: For all size of tumours, sensitivity was 85.71%, specificity was 92.85%, positive predictive value was 92.30%, negative predictive value was 86.66% and accuracy was 94.34%. The positive predictive value was 90.00% negative predictive value was 92.68% and accuracy was 92.16%. For 1 mm to 4 mm size of polyp the sensitive was 28.57%, specificity was 92.31%, positive predictive value was 66.67%, negative predictive value was 70.59% and accuracy was 70%.Conclusions: In present study we have found that there was male predominance in patient and gastrointestinal bleeding was common clinical presentation. We have also observed that all size of poly MR colonography as having sensitivity and specificity around 90% but MR colonography is highly sensitive and specific for polyp size above 8mm but it is less sensitive for size below 4 mm.

Download Full-text

Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Challenge for Magnetic Resonance Colonography

Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

10.1097/00002142-200212000-00006 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 13 (6) ◽

pp. 427-434 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Bettina Saar ◽

Thomas Rösch ◽

Ernst J. Rummeny

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Cancer Screening ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽

Magnetic Resonance Colonography

Download Full-text

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography for acute pulmonary embolism - a systematic review and meta-analysis

VASA ◽

10.1024/0301-1526/a000509 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 45 (2) ◽

pp. 149-154 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Jie Li ◽

Lei Feng ◽

Jiangbo Li ◽

Jian Tang

Keyword(s):

Pulmonary Embolism ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Magnetic Resonance Angiography ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Acute Pulmonary Embolism ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Likelihood Ratios ◽

Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽

Acute Pe ◽

Limited Sensitivity

Abstract. Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted that included studies from January 2000 to August 2015 using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Springer link. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratios (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as well as the 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRA for acute PE. Meta-disc software version 1.4 was used to analyze the data. Results: Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (86 %, 95 % CI: 81 % to 90 %) and specificity (99 %, 95 % CI: 98 % to 100 %) demonstrated that MRA diagnosis had limited sensitivity and high specificity in the detection of acute PE. The pooled estimate of PLR (41.64, 95 % CI: 17.97 to 96.48) and NLR (0.17, 95 % CI: 0.11 to 0.27) provided evidence for the low missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis rates of MRA for acute PE. The high diagnostic accuracy of MRA for acute PE was demonstrated by the overall DOR (456.51, 95 % CI: 178.38 - 1168.31) and SROC curves (AUC = 0.9902 ± 0.0061). Conclusions: MRA can be used for the diagnosis of acute PE. However, due to limited sensitivity, MRA cannot be used as a stand-alone test to exclude acute PE.

Download Full-text