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.

ABSTRACT. CT enterography is a new non-invasive imaging technique that offers superior small bowel visualisation compared with standard abdomino-pelvic CT, and provides complementary diagnostic information to capsule endoscopy and MRI enterography. CT enterography is well tolerated by patients and enables accurate, efficient assessment of pathology arising from the small bowel wall or surrounding organs. This article reviews the clinical role of CT enterography, and offers practical tips for optimising technique and accurate interpretation. Until recently, diagnosis of small bowel pathology had relied primarily on radiological techniques, in part due to the relative inaccessibility of the small bowel to conventional endoscopy. However, new endoscopic developments-notably the recent introduction of capsule endoscopy and double balloon enteroscopy-are challenging this position. Capsule endoscopy, for example, is now generally accepted as first-line investigation for occult gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and increasingly advocated for diagnosis of early Crohn's disease. However, the radiological community has not stood still. In parallel with the development of new endoscopic techniques, rapid progress has been made in crosssectional imaging technologies, harnessing the power of multidetector row CT (MDCT), MRI and ultrasound, facilitating rapid, accurate and minimally invasive investigation of the small bowel and adjacent tissues.CT enterography was first introduced by Raptopoulos et al [1] in 1997 as a modification to ''standard'' abdomino-pelvic CT examination to specifically examine the small bowel in detail, notably to assess the extent and severity of Crohn's disease [1,2]. They combined neutral (low-density) oral contrast with ''enteric phase'' CT to optimise contrast resolution between mucosa and lumen, thereby maximising conspicuity of abnormalities arising from the small bowel wall. Several authors have subsequently described similar techniques, which are broadly categorised into CT enterography (where patients drink oral contrast) and CT enteroclysis (luminal contrast is introduced via a nasojejunal tube placed fluoroscopically prior to CT examination). Although superior jejunal distension is attained using enteroclysis, the convenience, efficiency and superior patient experience achieved with CT enterography make it the preferred technique at the authors' institutions, and therefore the focus of this review. This paper will critically review the CT enterography technique and provide practical tips on interpretation to assist radiologists and help them avoid common interpretative pitfalls. We will also examine its role relative to other complementary non-ionising radiation radiological tests. TechniqueThe technique of CT enterography combines small bowel distension with a neutral or low-density oral contrast mixture and abdomino-pelvic CT examination during the enteric phase following administration of intravenous contrast. Patients drink approximately 1.5-2 l of oral contrast over 45-60 min. Patient comp...

MR enterography is a promising alternative to capsule endoscopy for small-bowel surveillance in adults with PJS. Although our results suggest that capsule endoscopy is more comfortable for the patient, MR enterography may be less prone to missing large polyps and may be more reliable in their size assessment.

Summary Background Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. Methods The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. Findings Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37–63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41–67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (−7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88–96]) and standard pathways (95% [91–98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12–14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17–21]); a 6-day (4–8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1–1]) and standard pathways (one [1–2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273–361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574–666) for standard pathways. Interpretation WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. Funding UK National Institute...

Background Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer. Methods The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete.