Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance

Aims. To identify the prevalence of colonic and extraenteric incidental findings in magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and their clinical significance. Methods. We retrospectively analysed 470 MRE studies carried out between March 2012 and 2014. Incidental findings were defined as those not expec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Srivathsan Ravindran, Sarah Helen Hancox, Neil Barlow, Arthur Dunk, David Howlett
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2016-01-01
Series:Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4020569
id doaj-8032639300424c149186ee78ea7e4f2a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8032639300424c149186ee78ea7e4f2a2020-11-24T23:14:23ZengHindawi LimitedCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology2291-27892291-27972016-01-01201610.1155/2016/40205694020569Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical SignificanceSrivathsan Ravindran0Sarah Helen Hancox1Neil Barlow2Arthur Dunk3David Howlett4Digestive Disease Centre, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 5BE, UKEastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne BN21 2UD, UKRadiology Department, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne BN21 2UD, UKGastroenterology Department, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne BN21 2UD, UKRadiology Department, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Eastbourne BN21 2UD, UKAims. To identify the prevalence of colonic and extraenteric incidental findings in magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and their clinical significance. Methods. We retrospectively analysed 470 MRE studies carried out between March 2012 and 2014. Incidental findings were defined as those not expected from or made apparent on the referral. MRE reports were reviewed for colonic and extraenteric findings, subcategorised into “clinically significant” and “insignificant.” Follow-up was identified from the electronic patient record. Results. The majority of MRE requests were made for inflammatory bowel disease (97%). In total, 114 incidental findings were noted in 94 (20%) scans performed. There were 29 “colonic” findings (25%) with 55% having a diagnosis of colitis. Out of 85 extraenteric findings, ovarian cysts (25%), renal cysts (10%), and abdominal lymphadenopathy (9%) were the commonest. Cumulatively, 59 cases were clinically significant (52%); of these, 30 findings were not previously diagnosed, amounting to 26% of all incidental findings. This led to intervention in seven patients. Conclusions. Incidental findings are common in MRE and there is a substantial proportion that is clinically significant and requires further investigation. There need to be stratification of risk and employment of local guidelines in order to achieve this.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4020569
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Srivathsan Ravindran
Sarah Helen Hancox
Neil Barlow
Arthur Dunk
David Howlett
spellingShingle Srivathsan Ravindran
Sarah Helen Hancox
Neil Barlow
Arthur Dunk
David Howlett
Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
author_facet Srivathsan Ravindran
Sarah Helen Hancox
Neil Barlow
Arthur Dunk
David Howlett
author_sort Srivathsan Ravindran
title Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
title_short Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
title_full Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
title_fullStr Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
title_full_unstemmed Unexpected Findings in Magnetic Resonance Enterography and Their Clinical Significance
title_sort unexpected findings in magnetic resonance enterography and their clinical significance
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
issn 2291-2789
2291-2797
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Aims. To identify the prevalence of colonic and extraenteric incidental findings in magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and their clinical significance. Methods. We retrospectively analysed 470 MRE studies carried out between March 2012 and 2014. Incidental findings were defined as those not expected from or made apparent on the referral. MRE reports were reviewed for colonic and extraenteric findings, subcategorised into “clinically significant” and “insignificant.” Follow-up was identified from the electronic patient record. Results. The majority of MRE requests were made for inflammatory bowel disease (97%). In total, 114 incidental findings were noted in 94 (20%) scans performed. There were 29 “colonic” findings (25%) with 55% having a diagnosis of colitis. Out of 85 extraenteric findings, ovarian cysts (25%), renal cysts (10%), and abdominal lymphadenopathy (9%) were the commonest. Cumulatively, 59 cases were clinically significant (52%); of these, 30 findings were not previously diagnosed, amounting to 26% of all incidental findings. This led to intervention in seven patients. Conclusions. Incidental findings are common in MRE and there is a substantial proportion that is clinically significant and requires further investigation. There need to be stratification of risk and employment of local guidelines in order to achieve this.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4020569
work_keys_str_mv AT srivathsanravindran unexpectedfindingsinmagneticresonanceenterographyandtheirclinicalsignificance
AT sarahhelenhancox unexpectedfindingsinmagneticresonanceenterographyandtheirclinicalsignificance
AT neilbarlow unexpectedfindingsinmagneticresonanceenterographyandtheirclinicalsignificance
AT arthurdunk unexpectedfindingsinmagneticresonanceenterographyandtheirclinicalsignificance
AT davidhowlett unexpectedfindingsinmagneticresonanceenterographyandtheirclinicalsignificance
_version_ 1725594707256410112