Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current and future diagnostic approaches: From serologies to imaging

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advances in serologic markers and imaging modalities continue to revolutionize diagnostic approaches to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Autoimmune and antimicrobial antibodies demonstrate diagnostic value in those patients with a moderate pretest probability of disease. Emerging data also support the use of antimicrobial antibody levels as a predictive tool for small bowel complications and the need for future surgery. In addition to being a prognostic marker in patients with acute severe colitis, serum C-reactive protein has been shown to correlate with clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic measures of disease activity. Capsule endoscopy and double-balloon endoscopy allow for visualization of the entire small bowel, and double-balloon endoscopy also has the capability to treat lesions. CT enterography is beginning to replace small bowel follow-through because of its high sensitivity and specificity for disease of the small intestine. Both CT and magnetic resonance enterography detect luminal and extraluminal abnormalities, with MRI serving as a safe imaging option in cases of pregnancy and renal insufficiency. These newer modalities add to the armamentarium clinicians can use for evaluation of IBD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Bossuyt X: Serologic markers in inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Chem 2006, 52:171–181.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta N, Cohen SA, Bostrom AG, et al.: Risk factors for initial surgery in pediatric patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2006, 130:1069–1077.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koutroubakis IE, Petinaki E, Mouzas IA, et al.: Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae mannan antibodies and antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies in Greek patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:449–454.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Quinton JF, Sendid B, Reumaux D, et al.: Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae mannan antibodies combined with antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies in inflammatory bowel disease: prevalence and diagnostic role. Gut 1998, 42:788–791.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnott ID, Landers CJ, Nimmo EJ, et al.: Sero-reactivity to microbial components in Crohn’s disease is associated with disease severity and progression, but not NOD2/CARD15 genotype. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:2376–2384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Iltanen S, Tervo L, Halttunen T, et al.: Elevated serum anti-I2 and anti-OmpW antibody levels in children with IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2006, 12:389–394.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaila B, Orr K, Bernstein CN: The anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody assay in a province-wide practice: accurate in identifying cases of Crohn’s disease and predicting inflammatory disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2005, 19:717–721.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Damoiseaux JG, Bouten B, Linders AM, et al.: Diagnostic value of anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies for inflammatory bowel disease: high prevalence in patients with celiac disease. J Clin Immunol 2002, 22:281–288.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holstein A, Burmeister J, Plaschke A, et al.: Autoantibody profiles in microscopic colitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006, 21:1016–1020.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubinsky MC, Lin YC, Dutridge D, et al.: Serum immune responses predict rapid disease progression among children with Crohn’s disease: immune responses predict disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:360–367.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zholudev A, Zurakowski D, Young W, et al.: Serologic testing with ANCA, ASCA, and anti-OmpC in children and young adults with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis: diagnostic value and correlation with disease phenotype. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:2235–2241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elitsur Y, Lawrence Z, Tolaymat N: The diagnostic accuracy of serologic markers in children with IBD: the West Virginia experience. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005, 39:670–673.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Landers CJ, Cohavy O, Misra R, et al.: Selected loss of tolerance evidenced by Crohn’s disease-associated immune responses to auto-and microbial antigens. Gastroenterology 2002, 123:689–699.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mow WS, Vasiliauskas EA, Lin YC, et al.: Association of antibody responses to microbial antigens and complications of small bowel Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2004, 126:414–424.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mei L, Targan SR, Landers CJ, et al.: Familial expression of anti-Escherichia coli outer membrane porin C in relatives of patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2006, 130:1078–1085.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hui T, Landers C, Vasiliauskas E, et al.: Serologic responses in indeterminate colitis patients before ileal pouch-anal anastomosis may determine those at risk for continuous pouch inflammation. Dis Colon Rectum 2005, 48:1254–1262.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Targan SR, Landers CJ, Yang H, et al.: Antibodies to CBir1 flagellin define a unique response that is associated independently with complicated Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2005, 128:2020–2028.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sutton CL, Kim J, Yamane A, et al.: Identification of a novel bacterial sequence associated with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2000, 119:23–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Dassopoulos T, Frangakis C, Cruz-Correa M, et al.: Antibodies to Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Crohn’s disease: higher titers are associated with a greater frequency of mutant NOD2/CARD15 alleles and with a higher probability of complicated disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007, 13:143–151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Devlin SM, Yang H, Ippoliti A, et al.: NOD2 variants and antibody response to microbial antigens in Crohn’s disease patients and their unaffected relatives. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:576–586.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sandborn WJ, Loftus EV, Jr, Colombel JF, et al.: Evaluation of serologic disease markers in a population-based cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2001, 7:192–201.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Peeters M, Joossens S, Vermeire S, et al.: Diagnostic value of anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibodies in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:730–734.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Linskens RK, Mallant-Hent RC, Groothuismink ZM, et al.: Evaluation of serological markers to differentiate between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease: pANCA, ASCA and agglutinating antibodies to anaerobic coccoid rods. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002, 14:1013–1018.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Reese GE, Constantinides VA, Simillis C, et al.: Diagnostic precision of anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:2410–2422.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Joossens S, Reinisch W, Vermeire S, et al.: The value of serologic markers in indeterminate colitis: a prospective follow-up study. Gastroenterology 2002, 122:1242–1247.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dendrinos KG, Becker JM, Stucchi AF, et al.: Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies are associated with the development of postoperative fistulas following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. J Gastrointest Surg 2006, 10:1060–1064.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Austin GL, Shaheen NJ, Sandler RS: Positive and negative predictive values: use of inflammatory bowel disease serologic markers. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:413–416.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Desir B, Amre DK, Lu SE, et al.: Utility of serum antibodies in determining clinical course in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004, 2:139–146.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Amre DK, Lu SE, Costea F, Seidman EG: Utility of serological markers in predicting the early occurrence of complications and surgery in pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:645–652.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Forcione DG, Rosen MJ, Kisiel JB, Sands BE: Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody (ASCA) positivity is associated with increased risk for early surgery in Crohn’s disease. Gut 2004, 53:1117–1122.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sabery N, Bass D: Use of serologic markers as a screening tool in inflammatory bowel disease compared with elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and anemia. Pediatrics 2007, 119:e193–e199.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Solem CA, Loftus EV, Jr, Tremaine WJ, et al.: Correlation of C-reactive protein with clinical, endoscopic, histologic, and radiographic activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005, 11:707–712.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vermeire S, Van Assche G, Rutgeerts P: Laboratory markers in IBD: useful, magic, or unnecessary toys? Gut 2006, 55:426–431.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Colombel JF, Solem CA, Sandborn WJ, et al.: Quantitative measurement and visual assessment of ileal Crohn’s disease activity by computed tomography enterography: correlation with endoscopic severity and C reactive protein. Gut 2006, 55:1561–1567.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shine B, Berghouse L, Jones JE, Landon J: C-reactive protein as an aid in the differentiation of functional and inflammatory bowel disorders. Clin Chim Acta 1985, 148:105–109.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Poullis AP, Zar S, Sundaram KK, et al.: A new, highly sensitive assay for C-reactive protein can aid the differentiation of inflammatory bowel disorders from constipation-and diarrhea-predominant functional bowel disorders. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002, 14:409–412.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Florin TH, Paterson EW, Fowler EV, Radford-Smith GL: Clinically active Crohn’s disease in the presence of a low C-reactive protein. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006, 41:306–311.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Thalmaier D, Dambacher J, Seiderer J, et al.: The +1059G/C polymorphism in the C-reactive protein (CRP) gene is associated with involvement of the terminal ileum and decreased serum CRP levels in patients with Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006, 24:1105–1115.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones J, Chen L, Tremaine WJ, et al.: A cross-sectional study to determine if C-reactive protein (CRP) normal range phenotype varies according to genotype [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2007, 132(Suppl 2):A173.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jones J, Loftus EV, Jr, Harmsen S, et al.: Association between C-reactive protein (CRP), orosomucoid, interleukin-6 (IL-6), fecal indices of disease activity in patients with Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2007, 132(Suppl 2):A362.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Travis SP, Farrant JM, Ricketts C, et al.: Predicting outcome in severe ulcerative colitis. Gut 1996, 38:905–910.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Boirivant M, Leoni M, Tariciotti D, et al.: The clinical significance of serum C reactive protein levels in Crohn’s disease. Results of a prospective longitudinal study. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988, 10:401–405.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Louis E, Vermeire S, Rutgeerts P, et al.: A positive response to infliximab in Crohn disease: association with a higher systemic inflammation before treatment but not with-308 TNF gene polymorphism. Scand J Gastroenterol 2002, 37:818–824.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Feagan B, Rutgeerts P, Schreiber S, et al.: Low baseline CRP correlates with a high placebo remission rate in Crohn’s disease (CD) clinical trial at 12 weeks [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005, 128(Suppl 2):A307.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Meyer MH, Hartmann M, Krause HJ, et al.: CRP determination based on a novel magnetic biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron 2007, 22:973–979.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Zilberman L, Maharshak N, Arbel Y, et al.: Correlated expression of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in relation to disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease: lack of differences between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Digestion 2006, 73:205–209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Leighton JA, Wallace MB: Update on small bowel imaging. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:1651–1654.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hara AK, Leighton JA, Heigh RI, et al.: Crohn disease of the small bowel: preliminary comparison among CT enterography, capsule endoscopy, small-bowel follow-through, and ileoscopy. Radiology 2006, 238:128–134.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Leighton JA, Loftus EV, Jr: Evolving diagnostic modalities in inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2005, 7:467–474.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mow WS, Lo SK, Targan SR, et al.: Initial experience with wireless capsule enteroscopy in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease [see comment]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004, 2:31–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kalantzis N, Papanikolaou IS, Giannakoulopoulou E, et al.: Capsule endoscopy; the cumulative experience from its use in 193 patients with suspected small bowel disease. Hepatogastroenterology 2005, 52:414–419.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dubcenco E, Jeejeebhoy KN, Petroniene R, et al.: Capsule endoscopy findings in patients with established and suspected small-bowel Crohn’s disease: correlation with radiologic, endoscopic, and histologic findings. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 62:538–544.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Toth E, Fork FT, Almqvist P, et al.: Wireless capsule enteroscopy: a comparison with enterography, push enteroscopy, and ileo-colonoscopy in the diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2004, 59:AB:173.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Costamagna G, Shah SK, Riccioni ME, et al.: A prospective trial comparing small bowel radiographs and video capsule endoscopy for suspected small bowel disease. Gastroenterology 2002, 123:999–1005.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chong AK, Taylor A, Miller A, et al.: Capsule endoscopy vs. push enteroscopy and enteroclysis in suspected small-bowel Crohn’s disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61:255–261.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Buchman AL, Miller FH, Wallin A, et al.: Videocapsule endoscopy versus barium contrast studies for the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease recurrence involving the small intestine. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:2171–2177.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Marmo R, Rotondano G, Piscopo R, et al.: Capsule endoscopy versus enteroclysis in the detection of small-bowel involvement in Crohn’s disease: a prospective trial [see comment]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005, 3:772–776.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Triester SL, Leighton JA, Leontiadis GI, et al.: A meta-analysis of the yield of capsule endoscopy compared to other diagnostic modalities in patients with non-stricturing small bowel Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:954–964.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Solem CA, Loftus EV, Jr, Fletcher J, et al.: Small bowel imaging in Crohn’s disease (CD): a prospective, blinded, 4-way comparison trial [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005, 128:A–74.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bourreille A, Jarry M, D’Halluin PN, et al.: Wireless capsule endoscopy versus ileocolonoscopy for the diagnosis of postoperative recurrence of Crohn’s disease: a prospective study. Gut 2006, 55:978–983.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Maunoury V, Savoye G, Bourreille A, et al.: Value of wireless capsule endoscopy in patients with indeterminate colitis (inflammatory bowel disease type unclassified). Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007, 13:152–155.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Scapa E, Jacob H, Lewkowicz S, et al.: Initial experience of wireless-capsule endoscopy for evaluating occult gastrointestinal bleeding and suspected small bowel pathology. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:2776–2779.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Fireman Z, Mahajna E, Broide E, et al.: Diagnosing small bowel Crohn’s disease with wireless capsule endoscopy. Gut 2003, 52:390–392.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Herrerias JM, Caunedo A, Rodriguez-Tellez M, et al.: Capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and negative endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003, 35:564–568.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Arguelles-Arias F, Caunedo A, Romero J, et al.: The value of capsule endoscopy in pediatric patients with a suspicion of Crohn’s disease. Endoscopy 2004, 36:869–873.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Ge ZZ, Hu YB, Xiao SD: Capsule endoscopy in diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease. World J Gastroenterol 2004, 10:1349–1352.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Eliakim R, Suissa A, Yassin K, et al.: Wireless capsule video endoscopy compared to barium follow-through and computerized tomography in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease—final report. Dig Liver Dis 2004, 36:519–522.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Bloom P, Rosenberg M, Klein S, et al.: Wireless capsule endoscopy is more informative than ileoscopy and SBFT for the evaluation of the small intestine in patients with known or suspected Crohn’s disease. Presented at the International Conference on Capsule Endoscopy; Berlin, Germany; 2003.

  69. Liangpunsakul S, Maglinte DD, Rex DK: Comparison of wireless capsule endoscopy and conventional radiologic methods in the diagnosis of small bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2004, 14:43–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Fidder HH, Nadler M, Lahat A, et al.: The utility of capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease based on patient’s symptoms. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007, 41:384–387.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. De Bona M, Bellumat A, Cian E, et al.: Capsule endoscopy findings in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and biochemical markers of inflammation. Dig Liver Dis 2006, 38:331–335.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Valle J, Alcantara M, Perez-Grueso MJ, et al.: Clinical features of patients with negative results from traditional diagnostic work-up and Crohn’s disease findings from capsule endoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006, 40:692–696.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Cheifetz AS, Kornbluth AA, Legnani P, et al.: The risk of retention of the capsule endoscope in patients with known or suspected Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:2218–2222.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Cheifetz AS, Lewis BS: Capsule endoscopy retention: is it a complication? J Clin Gastroenterol 2006, 40:688–691.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Lin OS, Brandabur JJ, Schembre DB, et al.: Acute symptomatic small bowel obstruction due to capsule impaction. Gastrointest Endosc 2007, 65:725–728.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Signorelli C, Rondonotti E, Villa F, et al.: Use of the Given Patency System for the screening of patients at high risk for capsule retention. Dig Liver Dis 2006, 38:326–330.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Voderholzer W, Maiden L, Adler SN, et al.: Interobserver variability of wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) in patients with Crohn’s disease and NSAID enteropathy. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:A–190.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Yamamoto H, Sekine Y, Sato Y, et al.: Total enteroscopy with a nonsurgical steerable double-balloon method. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 53:216–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Lo S, Leighton J, Ross A, et al.: Double balloon push enteroscopy: technical details and early experience in 6 tertiary care centers [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 61:AB174.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Yamamoto H, Kita H, Sunada K, et al.: Clinical outcomes of double-balloon endoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of small-intestinal diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004, 2:1010–1016.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. May A, Nachbar L, Ell C: Double-balloon enteroscopy (push-and-pull enteroscopy) of the small bowel: feasibility and diagnostic and therapeutic yield in patients with suspected small bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2005, 62:62–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Maeda O, Ando T, Wantanabe R, et al.: Usefullness of double-balloon enteroscopy in Crohn’s disease [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2005, 128:A–315.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Oshitani N, Yukawa T, Yamagami H, et al.: Evaluation of deep small bowel involvement by double-balloon enteroscopy in Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2006, 101:1484–1489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Tanaka S, Mitsui K, Shirakawa K, et al.: Successful retrieval of video capsule endoscopy retained at ileal stenosis of Crohn’s disease using double-balloon endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006, 21:922–923.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bruining DH, Siddiki HA, Fletcher JG, et al.: Prevalence of penetrating disease and extraintestinal manifestations of Crohn’s disease detected with CT enterography. Gastroenterology 2007, 132(Suppl 2):A–650.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wold PB, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Sandborn WJ: Assessment of small bowel Crohn disease: noninvasive perioral CT enterography compared with other imaging methods and endoscopy—feasibility study. Radiology 2003, 229:275–281.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bodily KD, Fletcher JG, Solem CA, et al.: Crohn disease: mural attenuation and thickness at contrast-enhanced CT enterography—correlation with endoscopic and histologic findings of inflammation. Radiology 2006, 238:505–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Booya F, Fletcher JG, Huprich JE, et al.: Active Crohn disease: CT findings and interobserver agreement for enteric phase CT enterography. Radiology 2006, 241:787–795.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Hassan C, Cerro P, Zullo A, et al.: Computed tomography enteroclysis in comparison with ileoscopy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 2003, 18:121–125.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Voderholzer WA, Beinhoelzl J, Rogalla P, et al.: Small bowel involvement in Crohn’s disease: a prospective comparison of wireless capsule endoscopy and computed tomography enteroclysis. Gut 2005, 54:369–373.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Higgins PD, Caoili E, Zimmermann M, et al.: Computed tomographic enterography adds information to clinical management in small bowel Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2007, 13:262–268.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al.: Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2191–2200.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Rottgen R, Schroder RJ, Lorenz M, et al.: CT-colonography with the 16-slice CT for the diagnostic evaluation of colorectal neoplasms and inflammatory colon diseases [abstract in English]. Rofo 2003, 175:1384–1391.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Andersen K, Vogt C, Blondin D, et al.: Multi-detector CT-colonography in inflammatory bowel disease: prospective analysis of CT-findings to high-resolution video colonoscopy. Eur J Radiol 2006, 58:140–146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Segarajasingam DS, Welfman C, Philpott J, Lawrance IC: Can MRI enteroclysis distinguish inflammatory changes form fibrosis in small bowel Crohn’s disease? [abstract]. Gastroenterology 2007, 132:A–499.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Shoenut JP, Semelka RC, Magro CM, et al.: Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopy in distinguishing the type and severity of inflammatory bowel disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994, 19:31–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Laghi A, Borrelli O, Paolantonio P, et al.: Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the terminal ileum in children with Crohn’s disease. Gut 2003, 52:393–397.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Darbari A, Sena L, Argani P, et al.: Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful radiological tool in diagnosing pediatric IBD. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2004, 10:67–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Bernstein CN, Greenberg H, Boult I, et al.: A prospective comparison study of MRI versus small bowel follow-through in recurrent Crohn’s disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2005, 100:2493–2502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Akman C, Korman U, Out G, et al.: A combination of small bowel imaging methods: conventional enteroclysis with complementary magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Clin Radiol 2005, 60:778–786.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Ochsenkuhn T, Herrmann K, Schoenberg SO, et al.: Crohn disease of the small bowel proximal to the terminal ileum: detection by MR-enteroclysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004, 39:953–960.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Rieber A, Wruk D, Potthast S, et al.: Diagnostic imaging in Crohn’s disease: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional imaging methods. Int J Colorectal Dis 2000, 15:176–181.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Schmidt S, Lepori D, Meuwly JY, et al.: Prospective comparison of MR enteroclysis with multidetector spiral-CT enteroclysis: interobserver agreement and sensitivity by means of “sign-by-sign” correlation. Eur Radiol 2003, 13:1303–1311.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Schreyer AG, Rath HC, Kikinis R, 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. Gut 2005, 54:250–256.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street Southwest, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Edward V. Loftus Jr

Authors
  1. David H. Bruining
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward V. Loftus Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward V. Loftus Jr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bruining, D.H., Loftus, E.V. Current and future diagnostic approaches: From serologies to imaging. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 9, 489–496 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-007-0065-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-007-0065-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation