Introduction
Stenotic complications affect 30%-50% of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD)1. There is currently no imaging modality to identify stricture composition, which would allow early targeted (anti-inflammatory vs surgical) treatment. Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) and its advanced modalities (contrast-enhanced and elastography) have the potential for transmural disease evaluation. The aim of the STRICTURE study was to investigate (advanced) IUS and MRI techniques to distinguish between inflammatory- (IP) and non-inflammatory predominant phenotypes (non-IP) of stricturing CD.
Aims & Methods
In this prospective, longitudinal study, consecutive patients with small bowel stricturing CD undergoing surgery were included. Patients were eligible if they had a non-passable stricture during endoscopy in the small bowel or at the valve/anastomosis and/or a stricture at cross-sectional imaging (IUS or MRE) with a bowel wall thickness (BWT) >3.0 mm in combination with narrowing of the lumen <1.0 cm or a prestenotic dilation (lumen width ≥2.5 cm)3. Clinical scores (Harvey-Bradshaw index and Crohn’s Disease Obstructive Score4) and biochemical parameters were collected. All patients underwent conventional IUS (B-mode/colour Doppler signal)5, CEUS and SWE and cine-loops were scored by one rater. After surgery, histological slides were retrieved at the same distance from the valve/anastomosis as measurements were made on IUS. Subsequently, a blinded expert pathologist scored all slides as [1] inflammatory (IP; BWT based on inflammatory infiltrates and edema according to the Nancy score), [2] fibrotic (FP; BWT based on structural changes due to fibrosis, adipose tissue and/or muscular hypertrophy6) or [3] mixed phenotype (MP; BWT with inflammatory and fibrotic aspects but no predominant phenotype). FP and MP were both classified as non-IP.
Results
A total of 36 patients (female: 58%, age: 42 ± 18 years) with a mean BWT of 6.7 ± 1.7 mm were included. Median time between IUS and surgery was 14 [3-50] days. A total of 7 patients had an IP, 18 a FP and 11 a MP. For the conventional IUS parameters, loss of bowel wall stratification was more frequently found in IP strictures (OR: 7.87 [1.24-50.00], p=0.029). Clinical, biochemical, other conventional IUS parameters, length of the stricture (13 [8-18] cm vs 10.5 [7.5-17.5] cm) and width of the prestenotic dilation (2.70 [1.70-2.80] cm) vs 2.30 [1.75-3.35] cm) were not significantly different between patients with IP and non-IP. However, CEUS, including wash-in and wash-out parameters, were significantly higher in IP versus non-IP strictures (Table 1). When excluding MP strictures, CEUS was the only modality that could distinguish between IP and FP. SWE inversely correlated with CEUS (Table 1) but did not differentiate between IP and non-IP (33.30 [26.00-44.80] kPa vs 43.49 [28.30-54.00] kPa, p=0.48) or IP and FP (33.30 [26.00-44.80] kPa vs 41.23 [24.36-48.60 kPa, p=0.95).
| CEUS parameter in decibel | Inflammatory phenotype | Non-inflammatory phenotype (fibrosis and mixed) | Significance | Cut-off value (AUC/sens/spec) | SWE correlation |
| Peak enhancement (median [IQR]) | 31.6 [31.0-35.7] | 29.38 [27.29-31.50] | p=0.014 | 31.0 (0.8/86%/69%) | ρ=-0.36, p=0.04 |
Wash-in area under the curve (median [IQR]) | 39.4 [38.3-41.5] | 36.09 [32.27-38.26] | p=0.005 | 38.2 (0.84/86%/77%) | ρ=-0.32, p=0.08 |
Wash-in perfusion index (median [IQR]) | 29.6 [29.3-33.7] | 27.63 [25.40-29.64] | p=0.016 | 29.2 (0.8/86%/69%) | ρ=-0.37, p=0.04 |
Wash-out area under the curve (median [IQR]) | 43.1 [41.3-45.1] | 38.90 [36.50-41.85] | p=0.016 | 41.8 (0.8/71%/77%) | ρ=-0.37, p=0.04 |
Wash-in and Wash-out area under curve (median [IQR]) | 44.3 [43.1-46.7] | 40.74 [38.23-43.54] | p=0.008 | 43.0 (0.82/86%/69%)
| ρ=-0.36, p=0.05 |
Conclusion
CEUS accurately distinguishes predominant inflammatory from not-predominant inflammatory strictures in CD and inversely correlates with SWE. CEUS, could be of additional value in this specific population to select patients most suitable for anti-inflammatory treatment. Reproducibility of advanced IUS techniques is under investigation.
References
1. Rieder F, Latella G, Magro F, et al. European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation topical review on prediction, diagnosis and management of fibrostenosing Crohn’s disease. Journal of Crohn's and Colitis. 2016;10(8):873-885.
2. Lu C, Gui X, Chen W, Fung T, Novak K, Wilson SR. Ultrasound shear wave elastography and contrast enhancement: effective biomarkers in Crohn's disease strictures. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. 2017;23(3):421-430.
3. Maconi G, Nylund K, Ripolles T, et al. EFSUMB recommendations and clinical guidelines for intestinal ultrasound (GIUS) in inflammatory bowel diseases. Ultraschall in der Medizin-European Journal of Ultrasound. 2018;39(03):304-317.
4. Bouhnik Y, Carbonnel F, Laharie D, et al. Efficacy of adalimumab in patients with Crohn's disease and symptomatic small bowel stricture: a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort (CREOLE) study. Gut. 2018;67(1):53-60.
5. Novak KL, Nylund K, Maaser C, et al. 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. Journal of Crohn's and Colitis. 2021;15(4):609-616.
6. Gordon IO, Bettenworth D, Bokemeyer A, et al. International consensus to standardise histopathological scoring for small bowel strictures in Crohn’s disease. Gut. 2022;71(3):479-486.