Comparison of Conventional Versus Abbreviated Mr Enterography: Assessing Disease Activity and Complications in Crohn Disease Publisher Pubmed



Rimola J ; Anupindi S ; Capozzi N ; Dane B ; Flicek KT ; Fernandezclotet A ; Grajo JR ; Huang C ; Jaffe T ; De Kock I ; Ordas I ; Radmard AR ; Roca A ; Saavedra C Show All Authors
Source: Radiology Published:2026

Abstract

Background MR enterography (MRE) is increasingly used to guide treatment and improve outcomes in Crohn disease (CD). An abbreviated MRE (A-MRE) protocol-omitting contrast and antiperistaltic agents-may reduce scanning time and cost and improve compliance. Purpose To compare intrareader concordance and interreader agreement in detecting disease activity and disease-related complications using contrast-enhanced MRE (CE-MRE) versus an A-MRE protocol in participants with CD. Materials and Methods In this secondary analysis of a prospective study, 10 abdominal radiologists independently reviewed MRE examinations from a prospective study of participants with CD before and after treatment with biologics, using both A-MRE and CE-MRE protocols, at least 1 month apart. Interreader agreement and intrareader concordance were assessed using Gwet first agreement coefficient (AC1) at both the segment and participant levels for the presence of active inflammation, associated indicative features, and complications. Diagnostic accuracy of the simplified MR index of activity (sMaRIA) was evaluated against ileocolonoscopy when available. Results This study included 60 participants (median age, 36 years [IQR, 28-44 years]; 40 female; 80 examinations). Interreader agreement for detecting intestinal active disease was high and comparable between A-MRE and CE-MRE at the participant level (AC1, 0.87 [95% CI: 0.79, 0.95] vs 0.91 [95% CI: 0.85, 0.97]). For strictures, similar interreader agreement was observed between protocols (AC1: A-MRE, 0.61 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.74] vs CE-MRE, 0.50 [95% CI: 0.35, 0.65]). For penetrating complications, the interreader agreement was also similar between protocols (A-MRE, 0.71 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.86] vs CE-MRE, 0.76 [95% CI: 0.63, 0.90]). The intrareader concordance between protocols for detecting active inflammation and CD complications was almost perfect for all readers (AC1 range, 0.86-1.00). In the terminal ileum, sMaRIA showed high sensitivity (A-MRE, 96.4%; CE-MRE, 98.4%) and specificity (A-MRE, 68.1%; CE-MRE, 71.4%) for detecting inflammation. Conclusion An A-MRE protocol demonstrated comparable interreader agreement to conventional CE-MRE and high intrareader concordance for detecting active CD and related complications in participants with CD. © The Author(s) 2026. Published by the Radiological Society of North America under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Ohliger in this issue.