CD activity assessment
Crohn’s disease is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by episodes of inflammation alternating with periods of remission. Therefore, it requires periodic assessment of the inflammatory activity to plan proper treatment [12]. Many disease-specific instruments to measure inflammatory activity have been evaluated, but to date no diagnostic technique is regarded as the standard reference for a reliable and reproducible quantification of CD inflammatory activity. In the routine clinical practice of gastroenterologists, this evaluation is currently based on the integration of clinical symptoms, physical findings, laboratory parameters, endoscopy and imaging tests [13].
In previous studies, both bowel wall thickness determined by sonography and vascularity within the diseased bowel wall assessed by colour Doppler have been significantly related to clinical activity indexes [14] and endoscopic activity [15, 16] in CD.
Wall enhancement after iv administration of Sonovue® has been studied as a parameter reflecting bowel inflammation. The reason for this phenomenon is assumed to be an increase of blood flow and local tissue perfusion (because of vasodilatation and neovascularisation). Mural hyperenhancement in CEUS correlates with active disease. To reliably quantify this finding, either a subjective categorical scale or an enhancement quantification can be used:
Semiquantitative evaluation: Serra et al. [17], who considered as active only the patients with abundant bowel wall enhancement (including both complete enhancement of the bowel wall or enhancement of the inner layers), reported a sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 63%, respectively, in distinguishing active and inactive disease according to the CDAI index (Figs. 7 and 8). Migaleddu et al. [18], using the same criteria as Serra et al., had a sensitivity and specificity of 93.5% and 93.7%, respectively, in distinguishing active and inactive disease according to endoscopy/biopsy as the reference standard.
Quantitative measures of bowel enhancement by quantitative analysis of brightness: the contrast agent enhancement of the bowel wall in patients with active endoscopic disease is significantly increased in comparison with the normal endoscopic bowel wall (Figs. 9 and 10). In the study of Ripollés et al. [19] a threshold brightness value of 45% increment had an overall sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 78% in predicting moderate or severe endoscopic inflammation.
CEUS studies assessing inflammatory activity are based solely on ileocolonoscopy, so evidence of their ability is proved only for the colon and terminal ileum, while CD can also be localised in the small bowel.
Mural thickening correlates with inflammatory activity demonstrated by endoscopy. However, similar to the results of some previous CT or MR imaging studies [9, 20], CEUS has showed that inflammatory activity has the best correlation with mural enhancement after contrast agent injection rather than with the assessed bowel wall thickness [19].
The perfusion pattern evaluations have a subjective character. Quantitative measures of bowel enhancement by quantitative analysis of brightness are more objective and, above all, more precise. However, the selection of the ROI to measure the contrast agent enhancement depends on the radiologist, potentially introducing an interobserver variability. The exact threshold value for defining abnormal mural enhancement will vary depending of the method of measurement. However, studies comparing quantitative measures obtained with the software packages of the different kinds of commercially available ultrasound equipment have not been performed.
Characterisation of inflammatory masses
Extraintestinal complications in CD include phlegmon and abscess formation. The differentiation between these two entities has important implications for patient management, because abscesses can require surgical or percutaneous drainage. Moreover, with new therapies, especially biological therapy (antibodies to tumor necrosis factor alpha drugs, anti-TNF), the presence of abscesses should be ruled out before starting the treatment, because undetected abscesses may become clinically apparent (with risk of sepsis) only after the closure of the drainage from a fistulous tract.
On US and colour Doppler examination a phlegmon appears as a hypoechoic mass with no identifiable wall and internal colour signals. On the other hand, abscesses are present as hypoechoic fluid collections with an irregular wall and peripheral flow on colour Doppler. However, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish inflammatory infiltrates from abscesses if gas, fluid or clear signals of colour Doppler in their interior are missing.
CEUS is extremely useful in distinguishing these two entities since phlegmons show intra-lesional enhancement, while abscesses show enhancement only in the wall (Figs. 11 and 12) [21].
Stenosis evaluation
Stenosis occurs in 12–54% of CD patients [22]. It is associated with significant morbidity and impaired quality of life. Treatment options are based on the differentiation between inflammatory versus fibrous-predominant strictures. The former can potentially be managed with conservative medical treatment, and the latter necessitates endoscopic balloon dilation or surgery. Colonoscopy is currently considered the standard method for assessing stenosis, but this technique can only provide information of the intestinal mucosa and in many cases cannot reach a stenosis located in the small bowel.
The combination of power Doppler sonography with the use of a first-generation contrast agent (Levovist®) appears to be effective in differentiating between hypervascularised inflammatory stenosis and hypovascularised, predominantly cicatritial stenosis [23].
Similar to CT or MRI, inflammatory stenosis shows abundant bowel wall enhancement after contrast agent injection (including both complete enhancement of the bowel wall or enhancement of the inner layers) that can be measured by quantitative analyses of brightness in predefined ROIs (Fig. 13) [24, 25]. A study presented only in abstract form reported that the percentage of increase in contrast agent enhancement of the bowel wall in patients with inflammatory strictures is significantly greater in comparison with patients with fibrotic strictures using surgical pathological examination as the reference standard, 82 ± 17% versus 63 ± 28%, respectively [24].
CEUS may help to differentiate between inflammatory and fibrostenotic lesions. However, in many cases a mixture of acute inflammation and fibrosis in the same stenotic segment can be found in the pathological analysis, making impossible the diagnosis (Fig. 14) [26], or even in some cases a stenotic segment can have some zones of inflammation and different zones with fibrosis as the predominant component, making the differentiation difficult (Fig. 15). Thus, although future prospective studies are needed, CEUS may have a role in differentiating hypervascular strictures from hypovascular fibrotic strictures.
Monitoring drug treatments
For an optimal evaluation of the efficiency of treatment, the patient must be monitored frequently; therefore, an appropriate monitoring technique should be noninvasive, without ionising radiation and, above all, patient-friendly. US fulfils all these requisites, therefore it can be performed repeatedly.
Bowel wall thickness and colour Doppler in the wall have been used to evaluate the response to classical medical treatments [27–29].
Quantitative techniques for assessment of bowel wall vascularisation by CEUS can determine changes of contrast agent enhancement, reflecting the response of intestinal inflammatory disease to therapy at follow-up (Fig. 16). It has been published that quantitative parameters by CEUS, for example the slope of the first ascending tract or the curve or the area under the enhancement curve, decrease significantly after effective pharmacological treatment [30]. Potential differences in the results obtained with different software are not important in monitoring the treatment, because patients can be evaluated by the same radiologist with the same machine.
However, despite the initial clinical improvement after treatment, many patients relapse on discontinuing treatment once maintained remission of the disease has been achieved. Residual hyperaemia in the affected bowel wall by colour Doppler may detect patients with incomplete histopathological remission, reflecting subclinical inflammation, with a predisposition to relapse [28].
Patients with quiescent CD after medical treatment with a thickened enhancing wall after contrast agent injection also present a higher risk of relapse, with a higher number of hospitalisations and surgeries (Fig. 17) [31]. This fact could have treatment implications; patients in clinical remission with persistent enhancement should be monitored closely or undergo prolonged treatment, whereas in the absence of or scarce enhancement, therapy could be stopped.
Moreover, after the introduction of new therapies, especially biological therapy, endoscopic mucosal healing has been proposed to be the treatment goal, because mucosal healing is associated with a decrease in rates of hospitalisation and surgery. Endoscopic examination is invasive and unpleasant, with poor patient compliance, so it cannot be performed repeatedly. Furthermore, it cannot be used to assess proximal segments of the small bowel.
Future prospective studies comparing CEUS with colonoscopy are required to determine if sonographic enhancement changes correlate with endoscopic changes.
Postoperative follow-up and detection of disease recurrence
Two studies have demonstrated that US can identify the recurrence of CD with a sensitivity of 81–82% when compared with endoscopy [32, 33]. In both of these studies a bowel wall thickness greater than 5 mm was considered pathological. The detection of an increased enhancement by CEUS in intestinal segments with mild mural thickening (<5 mm) may improve the diagnosis of disease recurrence (Fig. 18) [34].