Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of small bowel tumors: MR enteroclysis

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the small bowel has become widely accepted at centers dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, due to the method’s diagnostic efficacy. MR enteroclysis is an imaging modality that combines the advantages of enteroclysis and multiplanar MR and allows the detection and the manifestations of small bowel diseases wherever they are located (intraluminal, intramural, or extramural). Magnetic resonance enteroclysis (MRE) is an emerging technique used for the detection and evaluation of small bowel neoplasms. This article illustrates the imaging appearances of small bowel tumors on MRI and the usefulness of MR enteroclysis in the diagnosis and categorization of these tumors, also discussing the role of MRE in comparison with other diagnostic modalities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martin RG (1986) Malignant tumors of the small intestine. Surg Clin North Am 66:779–785

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. North JH, Pack MS (2000) Malignant tumors of the small intestine: a review of 144 cases. Am Surg 66:46–51

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta S, Gupta S (1982) Primary tumors of the small bowel: a clinico-pathological study of 58 cases. J Surg Oncol 20:161–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gill SS, Heuman DM, Mihas AA (2001) Small intestinal neoplasms. J Clin Gastroenterol 33:267–282

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gore R, Masselli G, Caroline D (2008) Crohn’s disease of the small bowel. In: Gore R, Levine M (eds) Textbook of gastrointestinal radiology. 3rd edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, pp 781–806

    Google Scholar 

  6. Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M et al (2004) Cross-sectional imaging in Crohn’s disease. Radiographics 24:689–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J, et al (2000) Small bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gourtsoyiannis NC, Grammatikakis J, Papamastorakis G, et al. (2006) Imaging of small intestinal Crohn’s disease: comparison between MR enteroclysis and conventional enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 16(9):1915–1925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Prassopoulos P, Papanikolau N, Grammatikakis J, et al. (2001) MR enteroclysis imaging of Crohn disease. Radiographics 21:161–172

    Google Scholar 

  10. Masselli G, Vecchioli A, Gualdi GF (2006) Crohn disease of the small bowel: MR enteroclysis versus conventional enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 31:400–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fidler J (2007) MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiol Clin N Am 45(2):317–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Masselli G, Brizi GM, Parrella A, et al. (2004) Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 29(3):326–334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Prassopoulos P (2002) MR enteroclysis: technical considerations, clinical applications. Eur Radiol 12(11):2651–2658

    Google Scholar 

  14. Laghi A, Carbone I, Catalano C, et al. (2001) Polyethylenglycol solution as an oral contrast agent for MR imaging of the small bowel. AJR 177:1333–1334

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maccioni F, Bruni A, Viscido, et al. (2006) MR imaging in patients with Crohn disease: value of T2- vs. T1-weighted gadolinium enhanced MR sequences with use of an oral supermagnetic contrast agent. Radiology 238(2):517–530

  16. Masselli G, Casciani E, Polettini E, Gualdi G (2008) Comparison of MR-Enteroclysis with MR-Enterography and Conventional enteroclysis in patients with Crohn’s disease. Eur Radiol 18(3):438–447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Negaard A, Paulsen V, Sandvik L, et al. (2007) A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 17(9):2294–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maglinte DD (2006) Invited commentary. Radiographics 26:657–662

    Google Scholar 

  19. Low RN, Barone RM, Lacey C, et al. (1997) Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with diluite oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology 204:513–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gore RM, Mehta UK, Berlin JW, Rao V, Newmark GM (2006) Diagnosis and staging of small bowel tumours. Cancer Imaging 6:209–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sailer J, Zacherl J, Schima W (2007) MDCT of small bowel tumours. Cancer Imaging 7:224–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Semelka RC, John G, Kalekis N, Burderry DA, Ascher SM (1996) Small bowel neoplastic disease:demonstration by MRI. JMRI 6: 855–860

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim KW, Ha HK (2003) MRI for small bowel diseases. SEM Ultrasound CT MR 24:387–402

  24. Kazama T, Kurihara Y, Tani I, et al. (2000) MR appearance of the small bowel hemangioma J CAT 24(4): 655–656

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Maglinte DD, Lappas JC, Sandrasegaran (2008) Malignat Tumors of the small bowel. In: Gore R, Levine M (eds) Textbook of gastrointestinal radiology. 3rd edn. Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, pp 853–869

  26. Lohan DG, Alhajeri AN, Cronin CG, Roche CJ, Murphy JM (2008) MR enterography of small bowel lymphoma: potential for suggestion of histologic subtype and the presence of underlying celiac disease. AJR 190:287–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chou CK, Chen LT, Sheu RS et al (1994) MRI manifestations of gastrointestinal lymphoma. Abdom Imaging 19:495–500

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Masselli G, Brizi MG, Restaino G, Vecchioli A (2004) MR enteroclysis in solitary ileal metastasis from renal cell carcinoma. AJR 182:828–829

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maglinte DD (2005) Capsule imaging and the role of radiology in the investigation of diseases of the small bowel. Radiology 236:763–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cazzato IA, Cammarota G, Nista EC, et al. (2007) Diagnostic and therapeutic impact of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in a series of 100 patients with suspected small bowel diseases. Dig Liver Dis 39:483–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fork FT, Aabakken L (2007) Capsule enteroscopy and radiology of the small intestine. Eur Radiology 17:3103–3111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Sharma VK, Heigh RI, Fleischer DE (2006) Imaging of small bowel disease: comparison of capsule endoscopy, standard endoscopy, barium examination, and CT. Radiology 238(1):128–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Pennazio M, Rondonotti E, De Franchis R (2008) Capsule endoscopy in neoplastic diseases. World J Gastroenterol 14(34):5245–5253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nolan DJ, Traill ZC (1997) The current role of barium examination of the small intestine. Clin Radiol 52:809–820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pilleul F, Penigaud M, Milot L, et al. (2006) Possible small-bowel neoplasm: contrast-enhanced and water-enhanced multidetector CT enteroclysis. Radiology 241:796–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Boudiaf M, Jaff A, Soyer P, et al. (2004) Small bowel diseases: prospective evaluation of multi-detector row helical CT enteroclysis in 107 consecutive patients. Radiology 233:338–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Albert JG, Martiny F, Krummenerl A et al (2005) Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis. Gut 54(12):1721–1727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Dea Department, Umberto I Hospital, University La Sapienza, Viale del Policlinico, Rome, 155-00161, Italy

    Gabriele Masselli & Gianfranco Gualdi

Authors
  1. Gabriele Masselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianfranco Gualdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Masselli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masselli, G., Gualdi, G. Evaluation of small bowel tumors: MR enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 35, 23–30 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9490-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9490-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation