Abstract
Objectives
The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) are promising intestinal ultrasound (IUS) indices of CD, but studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers. We compared SUS-CD and BUSS against histological and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) reference standards in a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicentre, multireader trial.
Methods
Participants recruited to the METRIC trial (ISRCTN03982913) were studied, including those with available terminal ileal (TI) biopsies. Sensitivity and specificity of SUS-CD and BUSS for TI CD activity were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI), from the prospective observations of the original METRIC trial sonographers against the histological activity index (HAI) and the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (sMARIA).
Results
We included 284 patients (median 31.5 years, IQR 23–46) from 8 centres, who underwent IUS and MRE. Of these, 111 patients had available terminal ileal biopsies with HAI scoring. Against histology, sensitivity and specificity for active disease were 79% (95% CI 69–86%) and 50% (31–69%) for SUS-CD, and 66% (56–75%) and 68% (47–84%) for BUSS, respectively. Compared to sMARIA, the sensitivity and specificity for active CD were 81% (74–86%) and 75% (66–83%) for SUS-CD, and 68% (61–74%) and 85% (76–91%) for BUSS, respectively. The sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than that of BUSS against HAI and sMARIA (p < 0.001), but its specificity was significantly lower than of BUSS against the MRE reference standard (p = 0.003).
Conclusions
Particularly when compared to MRE activity scoring, SUS-CD and BUSS are promising tools in a real-world clinical setting.
Clinical relevance statement
When tested using data from a multicentre, multireader diagnostic accuracy trial, the simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS) were clinically viable intestinal ultrasound indices that were reasonably sensitive and specific for terminal ileal Crohn’s disease, especially when compared to a magnetic resonance reference standard.
Key Points
-
The simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease and bowel ultrasound score are promising intestinal ultrasound indices of Crohn’s disease but to date studied mainly in small settings with few sonographers.
-
Compared to histology and the magnetic resonance reference standard in a multicentre, multireader setting, the sensitivity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease is significantly greater than that of bowel ultrasound score.
-
The specificity of simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease was significantly lower than that of bowel ultrasound score compared to the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard. The specificity of both indices was numerically higher when the magnetic resonance enterography reference standard was adopted.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Identifying and treating inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease (CD) are fundamental to optimise management and reduce subsequent penetrating and stricturing disease [1]. Cross-sectional imaging including magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is used routinely to diagnose and monitor CD [2, 3], and they are viable alternatives to colonoscopy [4,5,6,7]. IUS has several advantages over MRE, being rapid in both bedside and outpatient settings, inexpensive, better tolerated by patients and avoiding contrast administration [8,9,10,11,12]. There has been considerable interest in developing and validating sonographic scores that quantify disease activity, in the hope that more systematic interpretation will improve consistency, aid comparison between consecutive examinations and facilitate response assessment. A range of US activity scores are proposed, including the simple ultrasound score for Crohn’s disease (SUS-CD) and bowel ultrasound score (BUSS), which have both been developed recently using robust methodology, and perform well against colonoscopy [13, 14].
To date, these promising indices have been derived and initially evaluated in single- or dual-centre studies using few, highly specialised sonographers, so their performance characteristics in generalised practice are unknown [13,14,15,16]. Whilst mucosal assessments with endoscopic or histological scoring are frequently used as a reference standard for disease activity, they can neglect transmural disease, something captured by cross-sectional imaging. Accordingly, we evaluated the accuracy of SUS-CD and BUSS to identify terminal ileal CD activity using both histopathological and magnetic resonance reference standards, obtained as part of a prospective, multicentre, multireader diagnostic accuracy trial [4].
Materials and methods
Study population and design
The MR Enterography or Ultrasound in Crohn’s disease (METRIC) trial (Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03982913) was a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and IUS in adult CD [4, 17]. Patients with newly diagnosed or established CD suspected of relapse were recruited from eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, and underwent IUS and MRE, as well as any other investigations such as endoscopy, required for standard care. The SUS-CD and BUSS were described after the METRIC trial completion; thus, the present study is a post hoc analysis rather than a pre-specified secondary outcome of the METRIC trial.
For the current study, we considered all patients (both newly diagnosed and suspected relapse) recruited to the METRIC trial for the comparison of IUS against a MRE standard of reference. This included some patients with a terminal ileal biopsy sample (with histological activity scoring), available within 4 weeks of IUS (Fig. 1), for the comparison of IUS against a histological standard of reference. This cohort has been described previously in a study investigating the diagnostic performance of MRE activity scores [18], but this prior report did not consider ultrasound activity scores (SUS-CD and BUSS), nor did it utilise an additional MRE reference standard. We reported results using the QUADAS-2 reporting guidelines for validation studies [19].
IUS protocol
IUS was performed prospectively and according to local protocols, using standard imaging platforms, curvilinear (2 – 5 MHz) and linear (> 5 MHz) probes, without oral or intravenous contrast [4, 17]. Patients fasted for 4 h prior to the IUS study. The colour Doppler setting was 6–9 m/s. Radiologists performing IUS were Fellows of the Royal College of Radiologists, affiliated to the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR), and had a minimum of 1 year subspeciality training in gastrointestinal radiology. One sonographer performed IUS who had received formal training and performed IUS routinely in clinical practice. The operators performing IUS had a median of 8 years (IQR 4–11) of experience. All practitioners were blinded to clinical data, previous imaging studies and endoscopic findings, and prospectively completed a standardised clinical report form (CRF), documenting conventional IUS observations (Appendix 1). Data from these prospectively completed CRFs were used by the study coordinator (radiologist with 5 years experience of MRE and IUS) to retrospectively derive the SUS-CD and BUSS activity scores without re-reviewing images.
Derivation of IUS activity scores
The SUS-CD and BUSS for the terminal ileum were calculated using pre-specified formulae from published methods [13, 14, 20], with the worst affected section assessed as follows:
Full definitions for the activity scores are provided in Appendix 2.
For the colour Doppler score component of SUS-CD, a priori we assigned a score of 1 to increased Doppler signal isolated to less than half the circumference on a trans-axial image when compared to an adjacent normal bowel loop in the same patient (Fig. 2a, b). Increased Doppler signal affecting more than half the circumference on a trans-axial image compared to normal bowel in the same patient was assigned a score of 2 (Fig. 2c, d). For BUSS, the bowel wall flow component scored 1, irrespective of whether the increased Doppler signal involved less or more than half the circumference compared to normal bowel, as per the original published article [14].
Reference standards
Histopathological reference standard
Terminal ileum biopsies were analysed by a specialist gastrointestinal histopathologist at each site, unaware of IUS findings. They scored the biopsy with the most severe inflammation according to the histological activity index (HAI) as follows: 0, remission; 1, mild activity; 2, moderate activity; 3, severe activity (Supplemental Table 1) [21].
Magnetic resonance reference standard
The simplified magnetic resonance index of activity (sMARIA) is an MRE activity score that has been validated against endoscopic reference standards, and used in several studies [22,23,24,25,26]. We derived the terminal ileal sMARIA for all patients as described previously [18]. In brief, MRE was performed as per local protocols at each METRIC trial site using either 1.5- or 3-Tesla platforms, and a minimum number of sequences were acquired [4]. Radiologists were blinded to all patient data and prospectively completed a standardised CRF from which the sMARIA was derived. The score ranges from 0 to 5, and a value of 1 or more indicates active CD (Appendix 3) [22].
Statistical analysis
The primary outcome was the difference in sensitivity and specificity between SUS-CD and BUSS for the activity of TI CD compared to the histological reference standard. We pre-specified active disease as HAI ≥ 1 [21]. The secondary outcome was the difference in sensitivity and specificity between SUS-CD and BUSS for the activity of TI CD relative to the MRE reference standard. We pre-specified active disease as sMARIA ≥ 1 [22]. We reported both outcomes stratified by newly diagnosed and suspected relapse patients. IUS activity score thresholds for active CD were taken from the published articles as ≥ 1 for SUS-CD [13] and > 3.52 for BUSS [14].
We calculated the sensitivity and specificity with Wilson’s 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each scoring system at the pre-specified thresholds. We used McNemar’s test to calculate the difference in sensitivity and specificity with exact 95% CI between SUS-CD and BUSS. All analyses were performed using Stata 17 (StataCorp). Statistical significance was based on 95% CI [27].
Ethics
Ethical approval was granted for the original trial in September 2013 (13/SC/0394). All participants provided informed written consent including for research purposes [4, 17].
Results
Study population and patient characteristics
The METRIC trial recruited 284 participants from 8 institutions, all of whom underwent IUS and MRE. Of these, 133 (47%) were newly diagnosed and 151 (53%) had established CD (Fig. 1). Of the 111 patients who underwent colonoscopy and had terminal ileal histopathological activity scoring available, 75 (68%) were newly diagnosed and 36 (32%) had established CD [18]. IUS was performed by one of 19 practitioners. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and HAI scores are presented in Table 1.
Diagnostic accuracy of SUS-CD and BUSS for identifying active CD, using the histology reference standard
Table 2 details the sensitivity and specificity of each IUS index for the activity of TI CD versus the histology reference standard. The corresponding ROC plots are presented in Figs. 3 and 4. The sensitivity of SUS-CD (79% [69, 86]) was significantly greater than that of BUSS (66% [56, 75]) with a difference of 12% (4, 20; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in specificity (−18% [−39, 2]; p = 0.046).
For the newly diagnosed group, the sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than that of BUSS, a difference of 13% (3, 23; p = 0.005). Again, there was no significant difference in specificity (−31% [−64, 2]; p = 0.046).
For the suspected relapse group, there was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between SUS-CD and BUSS.
By way of illustration, in 1000 hypothetical patients, SUS-CD would identify 631 true positives, 99 false positives, 171 false negatives and 99 true negatives. BUSS would identify 532 true positives, 63 false positives, 270 false negatives and 135 true negatives.
Diagnostic accuracy of SUS-CD and BUSS for identifying active CD, using the magnetic resonance reference standard
The sensitivity and specificity of SUS-CD and BUSS compared to the MRE reference standard are presented in Table 3, with the corresponding ROC plots in Figs. 5 and 6.
The sensitivity of SUS-CD (81% [74, 86]) was significantly greater than that of BUSS (68% [61, 74]) with a difference of 13% (7, 18; p < 0.001).
The specificity of SUS-CD (75% [66, 83]) was significantly lower than of BUSS (85% [76, 91]), a difference of −10% (−17, −3; p = 0.003).
For the newly diagnosed and suspected relapse group, the sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than of BUSS, 17% (9, 26; p < 0.001) and 8% (1, 14; p = 0.008), respectively. There was no significant difference in specificity between SUS-CD and BUSS when stratified by newly diagnosed and suspected relapse.
Discussion
In the present study, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of two IUS scoring indices for terminal ileal CD, using prospective data collected as part of a multicentre trial. SUS-CD and BUSS at the previously published thresholds had adequate sensitivity compared to both the histological and magnetic resonance reference standards. Compared to histology, the sensitivity of SUS-CD was significantly greater than that of BUSS. There was no significant difference in specificity. The sensitivity of SUS-CD was also significantly greater than that of BUSS when using the MRE reference standard, but its specificity was significantly lower than of BUSS. The specificity of both indices was numerically higher when the MRE reference standard was adopted.
Like MRE, IUS is an important investigation for CD that influences clinical decision-making [15, 28,29,30]. Development of IUS activity scores has attracted considerable interest as objective and standardised assessment may increase diagnostic utility across both clinical and research settings [31]. Saevik and co-workers developed SUS-CD in a single-centre prospective study of 40 patients using the simple endoscopic score for CD (SES-CD) as the reference standard [13]. The score was then validated in a dual-centre study, using the same reference standard, in 124 patients with two sonographers performing IUS. Sensitivity for SUS-CD was 95.3% (95% CI 88, 98), specificity 70.3% (56, 82) and ROC AUC 0.92. In our more diverse, multi-institution trial, with numerous sonographers, we found SUS-CD to be sensitive for active TI CD. Specificity was adequate using the MRE reference standard, although lower when compared to histology. Freitas et al tested SUS-CD in a retrospective single-centre study of 50 patients [32]. The reference standard was SES-CD, and a solitary, highly experienced sonographer performed all IUS. They found SUS-CD had an ROC AUC of 0.62 for discriminating between inactive and active CD; sensitivity and specificity were not reported, and the 2 × 2 tables not provided. In their cohort, 40% of their patients had no TI disease. The small, retrospective, single-centre nature of this work limits generalisability.
Allocca et al developed BUSS in a single-centre prospective study of 225 patients, all with an established diagnosis of CD receiving stable treatment, who were undergoing routine assessment [14]. One of two sonographers, with at least 7 years experience, performed IUS. The reference standard was SES-CD. Sensitivity and specificity were 83% (76, 88) and 85% (73, 93), respectively, with a ROC AUC of 0.86 (0.81, 0.91). The same group also assessed BUSS in a prospective study of 49 patients who underwent IUS and colonoscopy before and following treatment with biologics and/or immunosuppressants [20]. These patients all had an established diagnosis of CD for at least 6 months. SES-CD was the reference standard and IUS was again undertaken by two sonographers with at least 7 years experience. BUSS had a sensitivity of 90% (55 to 99) and specificity of 74% (58 to 87) for identifying patients with endoscopic remission. In our more diverse multi-centre, multireader study population, we found BUSS to have adequate sensitivity compared to both reference standards. Specificity was similarly highly compared to the MRE reference standard.
Indeed, in our study, the specificity for both IUS indices was numerically higher when MRE was taken as the reference standard. This may reflect the inherent limitation of a histopathological reference standard which provides superficial sampling of the TI rather than the transmural bowel assessment offered by MRE [18]. Furthermore, in instances of endoscopic skipping, where the luminal surface of the TI is spared because the active inflammation is restricted to intramural portions of the bowel wall, endoscopy may be falsely negative [33, 34]. Interestingly, when compared to the same histological reference, MRE activity scores sMARIA, London score and the ‘extended’ London score also had relatively low specificity of 41%, 64% and 41% respectively [18].
An advantage of histology as a reference standard is that it is independent of the imaging test under consideration. Although MRE is arguably a superior ‘transmural’ reference standard, it shares parameters with IUS. Wall thickness for example is common to both MRE and IUS activity scores, and it is therefore perhaps expected that IUS would fare better against an MRE standard of reference. It would be interesting to fully detail the characteristics of patients who have active disease on IUS (or MRE) but not on histology and vice versa, and how this is influenced by patient cohort (new diagnosis or suspect relapse). Although beyond the scope of the current study, such an analysis is planned.
The development and validation studies for SUS-CD and BUSS occurred in single centres with few sonographers, who were also highly specialised. Indeed, a recent international Delphi consensus panel concluded that it was uncertain if any current IUS scoring systems were appropriate to assess CD activity, highlighting the need for more studies like ours for external validation [31]. The present study is the first to evaluate the performance of these IUS indices in a prospective, multicentre, multireader setting. We considered 284 patients from 8 institutions with 19 operators performing IUS, thus more representative of a real-world setting and likely to reflect expected performance in clinical practice. This is the first study to assess SUS-CD and BUSS against an MRE reference standard, which is important as in the clinical setting, a decision often needs to be made between whether to employ IUS or MRE [2]. Furthermore, MRE is both sensitive and specific for CD providing transmural assessment, and in cases of endoscopic skipping, a reliable alternative to endoscopy [33, 35].
Our work has some limitations. The METRIC trial was completed prior to the development of the SUS-CD and BUSS and so this work is a pragmatic post hoc analysis. In our study, we scored the colour Doppler score component of SUS-CD based on whether the increased flow was focal (less than half the circumference of diseased bowel compared to normal bowel wall of the same patient) or generalised (more than half the circumference of abnormal bowel wall), rather than the exact number of vessels observed (Fig. 2). We also used the original suggested cut-off for active disease. We feel that our methodology is very close to that described for SUS-CD, and that there would have been little to no difference in our estimation of the colour Doppler component. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude that this variation in methodology impacted on results, so future work validating SUS-CD should adopt the exact approach described in the original paper [13]. Notwithstanding, if IUS activity scores are to ultimately be used in routine clinical practice, it is more likely that the colour Doppler parameter will be assessed in a qualitative fashion to save time. This is reflected in recent IUS scores such as the International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score (IBUS-SAS) which advocates a qualitative rather than quantitative approach to the assessment of Doppler signal [36]. We did not encounter this issue when deriving BUSS as increased bowel wall flow was a binary score. IUS was performed according to protocol-stipulated parameters, including probe frequency and Doppler flow settings. However, the trial utilised many readers and a range of ultrasound platforms. It is possible that results could have been improved using stricter acquisition protocols, a single manufacturer platform and central reading. However, one of the advantages of the METRIC trial design is that it tested the generalisability of imaging modalities when applied across multiple healthcare settings, reflecting real-world clinical practice [4, 17]. We could not use other reference standards, including ileocolonoscopy scores such as SES-CD to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, as these were not collected as part of METRIC. We were unable to assess inter-observer agreement but this has been studied extensively [8, 37,38,39]. Reassuringly, De Voogd et al found bowel wall thickness and Doppler flow were reliable, parameters that comprise SUS-CD and BUSS [40]. Our cohort consisted of TI CD exclusively, so we could not evaluate IUS scoring systems for other segments including colonic disease. Our study design did not permit us to consider whether SUS-CD and BUSS are sensitive to treatment response. BUSS has been shown to identify therapeutic response, but more work is needed in this area, especially to evaluate SUS-CD [20]. We could not assess other promising IUS activity scores such as the IBUS-SAS as the data required to calculate these were not collected as part of the METRIC trial [36]. Finally, the METRIC cohort had a relatively high prevalence of active disease given the nature of the recruited patients. Our data is therefore potentially more applicable to patients with higher disease activity, rather than those with more chronic disease and lower levels of enteric inflammation.
Conclusion
Our study provides real-world evidence that SUS-CD and BUSS are viable IUS indices that are sensitive and specific for active TI CD, especially when compared to an MRE reference standard. More studies like ours in prospective multicentre, multireader settings will facilitate external validation of SUS-CD and BUSS, and establish their suitability for adoption into routine clinical practice.
Abbreviations
- BUSS:
-
Bowel ultrasound score
- CD:
-
Crohn’s disease
- IUS:
-
Intestinal ultrasound
- MRE:
-
Magnetic resonance enterography
- sMARIA:
-
Simplified magnetic resonance index of activity
- SUS-CD:
-
Simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease
References
Colombel JF, Panaccione R, Bossuyt P et al (2017) Effect of tight control management on Crohn’s disease (CALM): a multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 390:2779–2789
Kucharzik T, Tielbeek J, Carter D et al (2022) ECCO-ESGAR topical review on optimizing reporting for cross-sectional imaging in inflammatory bowel disease. J Crohns Colitis 16:523–543
Rimola J, Torres J, Kumar S, et al (2022) Recent advances in clinical practice: advances in cross-sectional imaging in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 71:2587–2597. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326562:gutjnl-2021-326562
Taylor SA, Mallett S, Bhatnagar G et al (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn’s disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:548–558
Gomollon F, Dignass A, Annese V et al (2017) 3rd European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease 2016: part 1: diagnosis and medical management. J Crohns Colitis 11:3–25
Lamb CA, Kennedy NA, Raine T et al (2019) British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 68:s1–s106
Ran Z, Wu K, Matsuoka K et al (2021) Asian Organization for Crohn’s and Colitis and Asia Pacific Association of Gastroenterology practice recommendations for medical management and monitoring of inflammatory bowel disease in Asia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 36:637–645
Bhatnagar G, Quinn L, Higginson A et al (2020) Observer agreement for small bowel ultrasound in Crohn’s disease: results from the METRIC trial. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:3036-3045
Rao N, Kumar S, Taylor S, Plumb A (2019) Diagnostic pathways in Crohn’s disease. Clin Radiol 74:578–591
Miles A, Bhatnagar G, Halligan S et al (2019) Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden. Eur Radiol 29:1083–1093
Kumar S, Hakim A, Alexakis C et al (2015) Small intestinal contrast ultrasonography for the detection of small bowel complications in Crohn’s disease: correlation with intraoperative findings and magnetic resonance enterography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 30:86–91
Hakim A, Alexakis C, Pilcher J et al (2020) Comparison of small intestinal contrast ultrasound with magnetic resonance enterography in pediatric Crohn’s disease. JGH Open 4:126–131
Saevik F, Eriksen R, Eide GE, Gilja OH, Nylund K (2021) Development and validation of a simple ultrasound activity score for Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 15:115–124
Allocca M, Craviotto V, Bonovas S et al (2022) Predictive value of bowel ultrasound in Crohn’s disease: a 12-month prospective study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:e723–e740
Allocca M, Fiorino G, Bonifacio C et al (2018) Comparative accuracy of bowel ultrasound versus magnetic resonance enterography in combination with colonoscopy in assessing Crohn’s disease and guiding clinical decision-making. J Crohns Colitis 12:1280–1287
Wang L, Xu C, Zhang Y, Jiang W, Ma J, Zhang H (2023) External validation and comparison of simple ultrasound activity score and international bowel ultrasound segmental activity score for Crohn’s disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2023.2181038
Taylor S, Mallett S, Bhatnagar G et al (2014) METRIC (MREnterography or ulTRasound in Crohn’s disease): a study protocol for a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective comparison study of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound compared to a reference standard in those aged 16 and over. BMC Gastroenterol 14:142
Kumar S, Parry T, Mallett S et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance enterography disease activity indices compared with a histological reference standard for adult terminal ileal Crohn’s disease: experience from the METRIC trial. J Crohns Colitis 16(10):1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac062
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536
Allocca M, Craviotto V, Dell’Avalle C et al (2022) Bowel ultrasound score is accurate in assessing response to therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 55:446–454
Gupta RB, Harpaz N, Itzkowitz S et al (2007) Histologic inflammation is a risk factor for progression to colorectal neoplasia in ulcerative colitis: a cohort study. Gastroenterology 133:1099–1105; quiz 1340-1091
Ordas I, Rimola J, Alfaro I et al (2019) Development and validation of a simplified magnetic resonance index of activity for Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 157(432–439):e431
Capozzi N, Ordas I, Fernandez-Clotet A et al (2020) Validation of the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity [sMARIA] without gadolinium-enhanced sequences for Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 14:1074–1081
Roseira J, Ventosa AR, de Sousa HT, Brito J (2020) The new simplified MARIA score applies beyond clinical trials: a suitable clinical practice tool for Crohn’s disease that parallels a simple endoscopic index and fecal calprotectin. United European Gastroenterol J 8:1208–1216
Tao Y, Li H, Xu H, Tang W, Fan G, Yang X (2021) Can the simplified magnetic resonance index of activity be used to evaluate the degree of activity in Crohn’s disease? BMC Gastroenterol 21:409
Hanzel J, Jairath V, Ma C et al (2022) Responsiveness of magnetic resonance enterography indices for evaluation of luminal disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 20(11):2598–2606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.055
Wilson EB (1927) Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 22:209–212
Novak K, Tanyingoh D, Petersen F et al (2015) Clinic-based point of care transabdominal ultrasound for monitoring Crohn’s disease: impact on clinical decision making. J Crohns Colitis 9:795–801
de Voogd F, Bots S, Gecse K, Gilja OH, D’Haens G, Nylund K (2022) Intestinal ultrasound early on in treatment follow-up predicts endoscopic response to anti-TNFalpha treatment in Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 16(10):1598–1608. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac072
Kucharzik T, Wilkens R, D’Agostino MA et al (2023) Early ultrasound response and progressive transmural remission after treatment with ustekinumab in Crohn’s disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 21(153–163):e112
Goodsall TM, Jairath V, Feagan BG et al (2021) Standardisation of intestinal ultrasound scoring in clinical trials for luminal Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 53:873–886
Freitas M, de Castro FD, Macedo Silva V et al (2022) Ultrasonographic scores for ileal Crohn’s disease assessment: better, worse or the same as contrast-enhanced ultrasound? BMC Gastroenterol 22:252
Daperno M, D’Haens G, Van Assche G et al (2004) Development and validation of a new, simplified endoscopic activity score for Crohn’s disease: the SES-CD. Gastrointest Endosc 60:505–512
Nehra AK, Sheedy SP, Wells ML et al (2020) Imaging findings of ileal inflammation at computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography: what do they mean when ileoscopy and biopsy are negative? J Crohns Colitis 14:455–464
Horsthuis K, Bipat S, Stokkers PC, Stoker J (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn’s disease: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 19:1450–1460
Novak KL, Nylund K, Maaser C et al (2021) Expert consensus on optimal acquisition and development of the international bowel ultrasound segmental activity score [IBUS-SAS]: a reliability and inter-rater variability study on intestinal ultrasonography in Crohn’s disease. J Crohns Colitis 15:609–616
Parente F, Greco S, Molteni M et al (2004) Oral contrast enhanced bowel ultrasonography in the assessment of small intestine Crohn’s disease. A prospective comparison with conventional ultrasound, x ray studies, and ileocolonoscopy. Gut 53:1652–1657
Fraquelli M, Sarno A, Girelli C et al (2008) Reproducibility of bowel ultrasonography in the evaluation of Crohn’s disease. Dig Liver Dis 40:860–866
Dillman JR, Smith EA, Sanchez R et al (2016) Prospective cohort study of ultrasound-ultrasound and ultrasound-MR enterography agreement in the evaluation of pediatric small bowel Crohn disease. Pediatr Radiol 46:490–497
De Voogd F, Wilkens R, Gecse K et al (2021) A reliability study: strong inter-observer agreement of an expert panel for intestinal ultrasound in ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 15:1284–1290
Acknowledgements
List of METRIC study investigators:
Contributors are Rachel Baldwin-Cleland, Stuart Bloom, Peter J. Hamlin, Ailsa L. Hart, Ilan Jacobs, Sara McCartney, Anne Miles, Charles D. Murray, Richard C. Pollok, Shonit Punwani, Laura Quinn, Zainib Shabir, Simon Travis, Alastair Windsor, Peter Wylie, Jade Dyer, Pranitha Veeramalla, Sue Tebbs, Steve Hibbert, Richard Ellis, Fergus Thursby-Pelham, Nicola Gibbons, Claire Ward, Anthony O’Connor, Hannah Lambie, Doris Quartey, Deborah Scrimshaw, Helen Bungay, Simona Fourie, Niall Power, Rajapandian Ilangovan, Evgenia Mainta, Phillip Lung, Ian Johnston, Mani Naghibi, Francois Porte, Christopher Alexakis, Anisur Rahman, Jonny Vlahos, Rebecca Greenhalgh, Anita Wale, Teresita Beeston, Wivijin Piga, Joey Clemente, Farooq Rahman, Simona de Caro, Shameer Mehta, Roser Vega, Roman Jastrub, Harbir Sidhu, Hameed Rafiee, Mairead Tennent, Caron Innes, Craig Mowat, and Steve Morris.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Institute of Health Research health technology assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number 10/68/01) published in full in Health Technology Assessment, 2019 Aug;23(42):1–162. 10.3310/hta23420. PubMed PMID: 31432777. The project is supported by researchers at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, NIHR, NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), HTA programme or the Department of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Professor Stuart Taylor.
Conflict of interest
Andrew Plumb is a member of the European Radiology Scientific Editorial Board and has therefore not taken part in review or selection process of this manuscript. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
A subset of 111 patients from this study have been reported in Kumar S, Parry T, Mallett S et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance enterography disease activity indices compared with a histological reference standard for adult terminal ileal Crohn’s disease: experience from the METRIC trial. J Crohns Colitis 2022 ;16(10):1531-1539. doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjac062. This article evaluated the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance enterography activity scores.
Methodology
-
prospective
-
observational
-
multicentre study
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kumar, S., Parry, T., Mallett, S. et al. Diagnostic performance of sonographic activity scores for adult terminal ileal Crohn’s disease compared to magnetic resonance and histological reference standards: experience from the METRIC trial. Eur Radiol 34, 455–464 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09958-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09958-6