Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of Crohn's disease: Validation of parameters of severity and quantitative index of activity

Background: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for assessment of Crohn's disease (CD) is expanding. The aim of this study is to define and provide an external validation of the MRI predictors of active CD, severe CD, and a quantitative Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity (MaRIA). Methods: In all, 48 patients with clinically active (n = 29) or inactive (n = 19) CD underwent ileocolonoscopy (reference standard) and MRI. T2‐weighted and pre‐ and postcontrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted sequences were acquired. Endoscopic activity was evaluated by the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS), and also classified as absent, mild (inflammation without ulcers), or severe (presence of ulceration). Results: In complete agreement with a previous derivation study, independent predictors of disease severity using CDEIS as a reference were wall thickness, relative contrast enhancement (RCE), presence of edema, and ulcers on MRI. Estimation of activity in each segment using this regression model, or another with simplified coefficients (MaRIAS = 1.5*wall thickness + 0.02*RCE + 5*edema + 10*ulceration) correlated with CDEIS (r = 0.798, P < 0.001; r = 0.80 P < 0.001, respectively). In the validation cohort both indexes had a high and equal accuracy for diagnosis of active disease: receiver operator characteristic (ROC) area 0.93, sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.87 using a cutoff point ≥7, and for diagnosis of severe disease: ROC area 0.96, sensitivity 0.92, specificity 0.92 using a cutoff point ≥11. The total of segment values (MaRIAT) correlated with global CDEIS (r = 0.83, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The MRI variables that should be evaluated in clinical practice to diagnose active CD and severe CD are validated, as well as the quantitative index of activity for use in research studies. (Inflamm Bowel Dis 2010)

[1]  J. Knottnerus Diagnostic prediction rules: principles, requirements and pitfalls. , 1995, Primary care.

[2]  Diagnostic prediction rules: principles, requirements and pitfalls. , 1995 .

[3]  J Y Mary,et al.  Development and validation of an endoscopic index of the severity for Crohn's disease: a prospective multicentre study. Groupe d'Etudes Thérapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires du Tube Digestif (GETAID). , 1989, Gut.

[4]  J André Knottnerus,et al.  Evaluation of diagnostic procedures , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. , 1997, JAMA.

[6]  R. Kikinis,et al.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging colonography with conventional colonoscopy for the assessment of intestinal inflammation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a feasibility study , 2005, Gut.

[7]  Joel G Fletcher,et al.  Prospective comparison of state-of-the-art MR enterography and CT enterography in small-bowel Crohn's disease. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  D E Grobbee,et al.  External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  R. F. Harvey,et al.  A SIMPLE INDEX OF CROHN'S-DISEASE ACTIVITY , 1980, The Lancet.

[10]  Roelof J Bennink,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in Crohn's disease , 2008 .

[11]  Province,et al.  Development and validation of an endoscopic index of the severity for Crohn's disease: a prospective multicentre study. Groupe d'Etudes Thérapeutiques des Affections Inflammatoires du Tube Digestif (GETAID). , 1989, Gut.

[12]  R Simon,et al.  Why predictive indexes perform less well in validation studies. Is it magic or methods? , 1987, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  J. Debatin,et al.  Magnetic resonance colonography for the detection of inflammatory diseases of the large bowel: quantifying the inflammatory activity , 2005, Gut.

[14]  F. Harrell,et al.  Prognostic/Clinical Prediction Models: Multivariable Prognostic Models: Issues in Developing Models, Evaluating Assumptions and Adequacy, and Measuring and Reducing Errors , 2005 .

[15]  I. Ordás,et al.  Magnetic resonance for assessment of disease activity and severity in ileocolonic Crohn’s disease , 2009, Gut.

[16]  J. Habbema,et al.  Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Mural inflammation in Crohn disease: location-matched histologic validation of MR imaging features. , 2009, Radiology.

[18]  Daniel B. Mark,et al.  TUTORIAL IN BIOSTATISTICS MULTIVARIABLE PROGNOSTIC MODELS: ISSUES IN DEVELOPING MODELS, EVALUATING ASSUMPTIONS AND ADEQUACY, AND MEASURING AND REDUCING ERRORS , 1996 .

[19]  J. Barkhausen,et al.  MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance , 2007, Inflammatory bowel diseases.

[20]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[21]  Jaap Stoker,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review , 2009, European Radiology.

[22]  R. Semelka,et al.  Bowel disease: Prospective comparison of CT and 1.5‐T pre‐ and postcontrast MR imaging with T1‐weighted fat‐suppressed and breath‐hold FLASH sequences , 1991, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.