English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:Clinical needs for detect mucosal healing is increasing today because medical treatment for CD has advanced and its prognosis has improved. Although standard method to detect mild lesions is endoscopy, it has some limitation due to complications. The usefulness of magnetic resonance enterocolonography (MREC) to detect active lesion such as ulcer is established. However, whether MREC is capable to detect mild lesions such as erosion or redness and which intestinal lesions tend to be different among MREC and endoscopy are unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the inconsistent lesions between endoscopical diagnosis and diagnosis by MREC. Methods:This study was cross-sectional single center study. Patients enrolled in this study were Crohn's disease patients who received endoscopy and MREC at the same period. Colon was divided into 6 sections, and intestinal lesions were classified to redness, erosion, and ulcer based on the depth in endoscopy. We assessed wall thickness, wall signal intensity, relative contrast enhancement (RCE), and diffusion weighted image (DWI) on MREC. Results:Total number of patients was 27 (Male 18, Female 9), average age was 36.4, average CDAI was 143.8. There were 55 and 46 lesions on endoscopy and MREC respectively, and lesions tended to be at terminal ileum and Sigmoid colon. Fistula was detected in 2 cases. The sensitivity of MREC referred to endoscopy was ulcer; 70% to 90%, erosion; 50% to 70%, and redness; 30% with single MREC finding, and detection rate for erosion was 85% in combination of these MREC findings. There were 30 inconsistent lesions, 10 observed by endoscopy only (ulcer: 0, Erosion: 2, and redness: 8), and 20 observed by MREC only (wall thichness: 4, edema: 3, DWI: 7, RCE: 13). Conclusions:(1) Deep mucosal lesions were well detected by MREC. The detection rate by each of MREC finding for endoscopical findings of erosion or redness was not high, but detection rate for erosion became high if we admitted positive when at least one of MREC finding was observed. (2) Superficial lesions were hard to detect by MREC. RCE had high false positive rate if we assume endoscopy as reference. In order to clarify whether false positive findings of MREC were true lesions or not, prospective study should be planned.

inflammatory bowel diseases

P-117 Investigation of Mismatch Cases Between Magnetic Resonance Enterocolonography and Endoscopy in Intestinal Lesion of Patients with Crohnʼs Disease