AJR Get Involved! Great Benefits! Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grubnic, S.
Right arrow Articles by Husband, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grubnic, S.
Right arrow Articles by Husband, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 173, 173-178, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Comparative efficacy of and sequence choice for two oral contrast agents used during MR imaging

S Grubnic, AR Padhani, PB Revell and JE Husband
Academic Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the efficacy of a positive and a negative oral contrast agent and to determine the optimal sequence choice for use in pelvic MR imaging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We undertook a prospective randomized trial of 57 patients with pelvic cancer who were examined with MR imaging after oral administration of a positive contrast agent (27 patients) or a negative contrast agent (30 patients). T1- and T2-weighted breath-hold and non-breath-hold gradient- recalled echo and turbo spin-echo sequences were obtained. Using the hard-copy images, we graded filling and distention of the small bowel, bowel wall conspicuity, delineation of normal and pathologic structures, and artifacts. RESULTS: Good or excellent small-bowel filling and distention was obtained in 17 patients (63%) receiving the positive agent and in 26 patients (87%) receiving the negative agent, and bowel wall conspicuity was graded good or excellent in 19 patients (70%) and 20 patients (67%), respectively. Normal and pathologic structures were better delineated with the negative agent (20 patients [74%] and 27 patients [90%], respectively; p = .02). Breath-hold gradient-recalled echo T1-weighted images were preferred for the positive agent (78%), and breath-hold T2-weighted images were preferred for the negative agent (93%). Contrast artifacts were more frequently seen with the negative agent (11% and 93%, respectively; p = .0001), and such artifacts were eliminated using T2-weighted sequences. CONCLUSION: Both contrast agents were effective in pelvic MR imaging, but delineation of normal and pathologic structures was better with the negative agent. Gradient-recalled echo T1-weighted sequences are recommended for positive contrast agents, and breath-hold T2-weighted sequences are recommended for negative contrast agents.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.