SummaryBackgroundMagnetic 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.MethodsWe 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.Findings284 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.InterpretationBoth 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.FundingNational Institute of Health and Research Health Technology Assessment.

The purpose of this study was to directly compare CT with fluoroscopy for the diagnosis of occult anastomotic leak following oesophagectomy. Patients undergoing oesophagectomy and gastric conduit formation for the treatment of oesophageal cancer were eligible for inclusion. Imaging was performed 6-8 days post-operatively. Patients underwent multislice CT examination of the chest and abdomen with a bolus of oral contrast, followed by fluoroscopic water-soluble contrast swallow (with subsequent use of barium if this was normal). The studies were reviewed by a consultant radiologist, who was blinded to the results of the other modality. Images were reported as showing "no leak", "possible leak" or "definite leak". The presence of mediastinal gas or fluid or extraluminal contrast at CT was recorded. The clinical outcome after reinstituition of oral intake was used as a reference standard. Patient preference for modality was recorded. 52 patients were recruited. Four were found to have leak on CT and fluoroscopy. 11 had possible leak at CT, but normal fluoroscopy: 2 of these had a leak confirmed later, whereas 9 had no leak. 37 had normal CT and fluoroscopy findings, and remained clinically well. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 80%, 40% and 100%, respectively, for CT, and 67%, 100%, 100% and 96%, respectively, for fluoroscopy. The positive predictive value of mediastinal air, air/fluid and extraluminal contrast were 25%, 75% and 50%, respectively. 35 patients found CT more tolerable. In conclusion, CT was better tolerated and more sensitive but less specific than fluoroscopy for detecting occult anastomotic leak.

No abstract

Pneumothorax is reported to be a more common complication of lung biopsy performed under computed tomography (CT) than under fluoroscopic guidance. This may simply reflect the greater sensitivity of CT over chest radiographs (CXRs) in the detection of small pneumothoraces. This study aimed to determine the incidence of pneumothorax detected by CXR and by CT after CT-guided biopsy of non-pleurally based pulmonary masses, and to compare these incidences with previous reports in the literature of pneumothorax incidence post fluoroscopic biopsy. 88 consecutive CT-guided lung biopsies of masses not abutting the pleural surface were included. Immediate post-biopsy CT images, and 1 and 4 h CXRs were assessed independently by two observers for the presence and size of pneumothorax. 72 biopsies were fine needle aspirations (FNAs) performed with 22 G spinal needles only, seven were cutting needle biopsies (CNBs) performed with 18 G cutting needles only, and nine were both. 37 patients (42%) developed a pneumothorax. 35 were detected on CT (40%) and 22 on CXR (25%). None required tube drainage. Of the patients in whom CT demonstrated a pneumothorax, the average depth of this was significantly greater for those in whom CXR also detected a pneumothorax compared with those in whom CXR was negative (7.3 mm versus 3.4 mm, p < 0.05). The incidence of pneumothorax detected on CXR post CT-guided biopsy is similar to the reported incidence post fluoroscopic biopsy.

No abstract