Next Article in Journal
Impedimetric Detection Based on Label-Free Immunoassay Developed for Targeting Spike S1 Protein of SARS-CoV-2
Previous Article in Journal
Reduction of Specular Reflection Based on Linear Polarization Control for Fluorescence-Induced Diagnostic Evaluation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Role of Multiparametric Intestinal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Response to Biologic Therapy in Adults with Crohn’s Disease

by
Pierluigi Puca
1,2,
Livio Enrico Del Vecchio
1,2,
Maria Elena Ainora
1,
Antonio Gasbarrini
1,2,
Franco Scaldaferri
1,2 and
Maria Assunta Zocco
1,2,*
1
IBD Unit—UOS Malattie Infiammatorie Croniche Intestinali, CEMAD, Digestive Diseases Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L. Go A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Rome, Italy
2
Dipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia Traslazionale, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L. Go F. Vito 1, 00168 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2022, 12(8), 1991; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081991
Submission received: 1 August 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 13 August 2022 / Published: 17 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Medical Imaging and Theranostics)

Abstract

:
Crohn’s disease is one of the two most common types of inflammatory bowel disease. Current medical therapies are based on the use of glucocorticoids, exclusive enteral nutrition, immunosuppressors such as azathioprine and methotrexate, and biological agents such as infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab. International guidelines suggest regular disease assessment and surveillance through objective instruments to adjust and personalize the therapy, reducing the overall rates of hospitalization and surgery. Although endoscopy represents the gold-standard for surveillance, its frequent use is strongly bordered by associated risks and costs. Consequently, alternative non-invasive tools to objectify disease activity and rule active inflammation out are emerging. Alongside laboratory exams and computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography, intestinal ultrasonography (IUS) shows to be a valid choice to assess transmural inflammation and to detect transmural healing, defined as bowel wall thickness normalization, no hypervascularization, normal stratification, and no creeping fat. Compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography, CT scan, IUS is cheaper and more widespread, with very similar accuracy. Furthermore, share wave elastography, color Doppler, and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) succeed in amplifying the capacity to determine the disease location, disease activity, and complications. This review aimed to discuss the role of standard and novel ultrasound techniques such as CEUS, SICUS, or share wave elastography in adults with Crohn’s disease, mainly for therapeutic monitoring and follow-up.

1. Introduction

Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing condition that can affect every tract or segment of the small or large bowel, with an inflammatory, penetrating, or stricturing pattern. A peculiar feature that distinguishes CD from ulcerative colitis is the involvement of the entire bowel wall with inflammatory infiltrate throughout mucosa, submucosa, muscular layer, and within the mesentery as well [1].
Throughout the years, several molecules with different mechanisms of action have been approved for CD treatment: monoclonal antibodies acting against IL 12–23 (ustekinumab) and anti a4b7 blockers (vedolizumab)) have been added to the anti-tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) agents [2].
Due to this wide range of therapeutic options, rising importance is being given both to the assessment of predictive factors of response to therapy and to the monitoring of response to therapies. In particular, in this field, close monitoring in a treat-to-target setting is a key principle to prevent relapse and complications Response to therapies can be classified into clinical response, defined as the improvement in symptoms and quality of life of patients; laboratory response, defined as the reduction in inflammatory markers, in particular C reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin; endoscopic response, defined as the improvement of the endoscopic markers of inflammation; transmural healing, defined as the reduction in or disappearance of wall thickening, the absence of hypervascularization, and the lack of mesenteric hypertrophy and mesenteric lymphoadenomegalies [3].
Even if the presence of clinical symptoms might reflect active inflammation, clinical scoring indices show poor correlation with the true state of disease activity. On the other hand, endoscopy, the current gold standard to objectify active inflammation, is not suitable for repeated assessment of disease activity since it is invasive, expensive, and not without risks. Hence, other objective measures are needed.
In particular, in the last few years, the assessment of transmural healing (TH) has become essential in the management of patients with CD since it has been associated with lower rates of recurrence and better outcomes [4].
Traditionally, transmural healing is evaluated by cross-sectional imaging: computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS) [5]. All the mentioned methods are able to evaluate the entity and extension of wall thickening as well as the presence of strictures or dilatation of the intestinal tracts. A recent meta-analysis evidenced comparable results in the accuracy of CT, MRI, and IUS in the diagnosis of CD [6,7], even if MRI seems to be superior to IUS in recognizing CD’s relapses [8].
Among all cross-sectional imaging, IUS is a promising and non-invasive imaging technique characterized by lower costs, greater feasibility, greater comfort for patients, and lack of radiation exposure. For these reasons, in the last years, more attention has been given to the perspectives offered by this diagnostic tool. Previous studies showed high accuracy for IUS to detect disease activity and extension when compared with endoscopy or MRI with high reliability among different operators [6].
Recently, the European Crohn Colitis Organization (ECCO) released a topical review concerning the main elements to be assessed in evaluating bowel inflammation [9].
This review focused on the potential role of multiparametric IUS in predicting therapeutic efficacy of biological therapy in CD patients. The role of B-mode ultrasound, Doppler, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), elastography, and small intestine contrast ultrasonography (SICUS) is discussed in detail, and the main studies taken into account are summarized in Table 1.

2. Standard Intestinal Ultrasound and Color Doppler

B-mode IUS is usually the first line imaging technique in patients with CD. It is performed using a convex probe (5–8 MHz) for panoramic view of both the small bowel and colon and subsequently a linear probe (11–14 MHz) for detailed parietal evaluation [22]. According to the current ECCO guidelines, IUS represents a fundamental tool for CD diagnosis, as well as for monitoring the disease course during follow-up [23].
The exam could provide important information about bowel wall thickness (BWT), intestinal motility, wall stiffness (through the compressibility), lumen distension (lumen diameter >2.5 cm) or strictures (lumen diameter <1 cm), signs of local inflammation (such as mesenteric fat hypertrophy or enlarged loco-regional mesenteric lymph nodes), and complications such as fistulas or abscesses [22,24].
Previous studies have shown high accuracy for IUS to detect disease activity, severity, and extent of inflammation when compared with endoscopy or MRI [25,26].
BWT is maybe the most important quantitative parameter of B-mode IUS, representing a hallmark of ultrasonography in IBD. In particular, the cut-off of 3 mm showed a sensitivity near 100% and a specificity of 83.3% in the evaluation of disease activity [27], with a good correlation with MRI and ileocolonoscopy [28,29]. Moreover, a recent study demonstrated that an increased BWT was associated with histologically assessed acute inflammation, whereas the presence of mesenteric fat hypertrophy suggested the presence of chronic inflammation [30].
Different studies evaluated the role of BWT evaluation for the follow-up of patients under biological therapy. It was demonstrated that an early reduction in BWT could be seen 2 weeks from the first dose of anti-TNF α agents [21].
BWT may play a role in predicting individual response to anti-TNF α therapy, according to a research by Saevik et al. [10]. They demonstrated that anti-TNF α monoclonal antibodies were less effective in patients with normal BWT and increased representation of the muscularis propria at baseline. Both these parameters, in fact, were considered suggestive of transmural fibrosis, a parameter associated with minor response to anti-inflammatory agents.
The occurrence of TH, considered as the normalization of all B-mode IUS parameters including a BWT < 3 mm, was proved to be linked to endoscopic mucosa healing [31,32] and predicted a better outcome in patients under anti-TNF α agents (odd ratio, OR 11.7, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.2–108.2; p = 0.01) [15]. Moreover, patients who reached the TH in addition to the endoscopic mucosal healing showed a lower rate and a later presentation of clinical relapse (4.5%, hazard ratio, HR 0.87, p = 0.01), compared to patients with only endoscopic mucosal healing [14].
In a recent trial performed in CD patients treated with ustekinumab, an improvement of B-mode IUS variables was demonstrated after only 4 weeks of therapy with a progressive normalization through week 48 [18]. A quarter of the patients enrolled (24.1%) reached a TH after 48 weeks of treatment, and B-mode IUS parameters after 4 weeks were able to predict the endoscopic response at week 48 (negative predictive value 73%)
Similarly, a multicenter study performed on 188 CD patients demonstrated an improvement of B-mode IUS parameters at 3 and 12 months after the beginning of different biological therapies (adalimumab, infliximab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab). However, a TH was recorded only in 27.5% of patients after 12 months, with a higher rate among those treated with infliximab (37%) and with colonic involvement (40%) [33]. Moreover, an ileal BWT ≥ 4 mm was correlated with infliximab secondary non-response by a multivariate analysis in 60 CD patients (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.49–5.55; p = 0.002) [19].
Color Doppler US adapted for slow flow detection is useful to define bowel wall flow (BWF) and to assess the semi-quantitative Limberg score [34,35]. This score estimates disease activity, with an average sensitivity of 82% [36], discriminating 4 grades of severity: grade 0 for no pathological marks, grade 1 for thickened bowel wall, grade 2 for initial vascular signals, grade 3 for bigger vascular signals, and grade 4 when these vascular signals spread over the near mesentery [22].
The role of BWF to predict the response to therapy has been evaluated essentially in the context of different activity scores also including B-mode parameters [37,38,39].
A quantitative color Doppler assessment scored by the software Color Quantification was able to predict clinical activity during anti-TNF therapy in CD patients, with a positive correlation with BWT [40].
Two recent studies using consensus panels have found a combination of BWT with BWF to accurately reflect endoscopic disease activity and endoscopic response [38,41]. In addition, a recent and partly validated scoring index with endoscopy as reference standard incorporated both BWT and BWF [42].

3. Small Intestine Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (SICUS)

In case of stricturing or penetrating phenotypes, small intestine contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (SICUS) performed 30–40 min after the ingestion of 500–750 mL of oral contrast such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) could be very useful in patients with CD, allowing a more accurate characterization of the bowel wall and loops [43].
After the ingestion of the macrogol contrast oral solution, the contrast is observed to flow through the terminal ileum into the colon. A retrograde follow-through assessment of the entire small bowel is then performed to visualize the contrast-filled ileal and jejunal loops in a caudo-cranial sequence.
According to recent studies, SICUS improved the sensitivity of IUS for the detection of small bowel CD lesions (sensitivity 57–96% vs. 96–100%) and reduced inter-observer and intra-observer variability [44,45].
SICUS also appeared to demonstrate reasonable accuracy in detecting CD-related complications, including strictures, abscesses, and internal fistulae [46] and in the follow-up of CD patients after ileocolonic resection.
It was demonstrated that SICUS could play a role in the evaluation of response to anti-TNF α agents. In particular, an improvement or normalization of SICUS parameters, such as BWT, disease extension, phlegmon, fistulae, or abscess, predicted a better response after 1 year of therapy together with a reduction in steroid therapy and hospital admissions [16].
In another study from the same group, a new sonographic quantitative index (the sonographic lesion index for CD (SLIC)) developed to quantify changes in CD lesions detected by SICUS was used to monitor transmural bowel damage in CD patients during anti-TNF therapy. The SLIC index takes into account both the extent and severity of the small bowel damage, including stricturing and penetrating lesions as assessed by SICUS. Its features were expressed in terms of wall thickness, lesion length, lumen narrowing, and dilation and identified five classes of severity from the lower (class A) to the higher score (class E) [47]. The authors observed significant improvements in SLIC scores after induction and maintenance therapy with anti-TNFa compared with baseline values. Moreover, SLIC scores and subscores and index classes were improved significantly in patients with clinical responses [48]. Even though all SICUS studies reported and demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy in the detection of CD lesions compared to conventional US and a promising role in monitoring treatment disease, SICUS remains a technique with a low diffusion in the last years and a prerogative of very few centers.

4. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (CEUS)

Over the last few years, significant advances have occurred in improving the application of IUS in the follow-up of patients with CD. In particular, the introduction of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), providing a real-time visualization of the bowel microvasculature, has increased the ability to detect disease activity (Figure 1). It is based on the intravenous injections of stabilized microbubbles with gaseous content, usually sulfur hexafluoride (Sonovue, Bracco) that arrives in the intestinal wall within 10–15 s, and can be detected upon contact with US waves, which affects their size and stiffness.
In a meta-analysis including 332 CD patients, CEUS showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.87–0.97) and a pooled specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.67–0.88) in detecting active disease [49]. Similarly, CEUS was able to detect active CD in 91.1% of the cases in a study by Ripolles et al. [50].
According to several correlation studies published in the last decade, a linear association was demonstrated between CEUS and other imaging methods, such CT, MRI, or positron emission tomography (PET), traditionally used to evaluate the presence of active inflammation [51].
When CEUS is performed, a first qualitative analysis often involves the description of the pattern of enhancement. It could be outward or inward and interest part of or the whole bowel wall [52]. Moreover, a semiquantitative estimation of the ratio between the thickness of the enhanced layer and the thickness of the entire wall section may be useful. Using a range between 0.43 and 0.47 could reach a sensitivity of 81% in detecting active disease, as reported by Serra et al. [53].
The introduction of dedicated software has made it feasible to develop quantitative and objective methods of perfusion evaluation based on the construction of a time–intensity curve [54,55]. Starting from these curves it is possible to extrapolate quantitative data of bowel perfusion, such as peak intensity (PI), time to peak (Tp), mean transit time (MTT), area under the curve (AUC), and the coefficient of the enhancement wash-in slope (Pw) (Figure 2). Several studies have focused on quantitative CEUS to evaluate treatment response at different time points in patients with CD. A reduction in perfusion parameters after 12 weeks of treatment with anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibodies has been correlated with better clinical outcomes at 1 year (85% vs. 28%; p = 0.0001) in 51 CD patients. Interestingly, in 9 of the 26 responders, CEUS was effective to correctly classify them based on a reduction in parietal enhancement without significant changes in BWT [11]. Quaia et al. proposed an early evaluation of time–intensity curves after only 6 weeks of pharmacological treatment and demonstrated that relative perfusion parameters derived from D-CEUS were related to treatment outcome and can separate responders from non-responders. In particular, the pretreatment values of AUC and PI and their changes at the sixth week were statistically correlated to the long-term therapeutic efficacy assessed by endoscopic evaluation within 5 months after the induction and clinical evaluation at 24 months [13]. Saevik et al. demonstrated that non-responders to steroid or anti-TNFα drugs showed a minor reduction in amplitude-based parameters (PI, AUC of wash-in, wash-in rate, and wash-out rate) after 1 month of therapy compared to responders [10]. Higher values of PI and AUC at the baseline evaluation were correlated with clinical response to biological therapy in a prospective study by Zezos et al. [56]. Based on our data, quantitative CEUS could discriminate between responders and non-responders after only two weeks of treatment with anti-TNFα [17]. In particular, a variation in four quantitative parameters extracted from time intensity curve (Pi, AUC, Pw, and MTT) after 2 weeks of treatment with infliximab was related to endoscopic response after 12 weeks. This feature could be useful to early identify patients who have more chances to benefit from treatment and to start second line therapies in the others.
Moreover, it was shown that quantitative CEUS could be helpful to identify patients with high risk of relapse after an initial benefit from therapy. In our study, patients who experienced relapse during the follow-up showed a lower decrease in PI and Pw after 2 weeks and a subsequent increase in the same parameters after 12 weeks of treatment [17].
A recent study performed in 40 patients treated with adalimumab or infliximab investigated the role of conventional IUS and CEUS parameters in predicting endoscopic response and remission early after treatment initiation [20]. Patients with endoscopic response had a significantly lower BWT after 4–8 weeks (T1) and 12–34 weeks (T2) of treatment compared to patients without endoscopic response. In particular, a decrease in BWT from baseline expressed in percentage was most accurate for prediction of endoscopic response: at T1, an 18% decrease in BWT predicted endoscopic response with 82% sensitivity and 71% specificity. Accuracy increases at T2 with a BWT decrease of 29% were most accurate to determine endoscopic response [OR: 37.50, 95% CI: 2.77–507.48, p = 0.006], and a cut-off value of 3.2 mm was most accurate to reflect endoscopic remission [OR: 39.42, 95% CI: 7.67–202.57, p < 0.0001]. Although other IUS parameters and CEUS parameters also decreased when there was endoscopic response, they were of limited merit in predicting and determining endoscopic outcomes in addition to BWT and BWF.
Beyond the classical role in the small bowel involvement, a role of CEUS in the evaluation of perianal disease through a dedicated rectal probe was also demonstrated. In a retrospective, multicenter cohort of 45 CD patients with perianal disease, CEUS demonstrated a good correlation with CT/MRI enterography to assess radiographic response after 6 and 12 weeks of ustekinumab treatment [57].

5. Elastography

Ultrasound elastography is a relatively new technique that is able to evaluate tissues’ stiffness and elasticity through the application of a static or dynamic stress by the ultrasonographic probe. The application of a static stress configures the so-called strain elastography (SE), whereas the application of dynamic stress is used in the shear wave elastography (SWE) [58]. A dedicated software evaluates the changes in the echo signal after compression of the target tissues and calculates how much the tissues deform according to the position of the probe. The results are shown in real-time on a color image where different degrees of strain are displayed in a color scale ranging from blue for maximum stiffness to red for maximum elasticity.
Intestinal elastography has historically been used in the diagnostic pathway of stricturing Crohn’s disease in order to distinguish inflammatory from fibrotic stenosis, a key factor in determining the correct therapeutic choice [59]. Though recent meta-analysis confirmed a good reliability in differentiating fibrotic and inflammatory strictures [60], the role of ultrasound elastography has only been evaluated in studies with small sample size and lacks a certain degree of standardization [61]. The correlation between elastosonographic parameters and histological assessment is currently under investigation. A recent systematic review showed an overall moderate to good accuracy in predicting histological fibrosis [62].
Starting from these perspectives and in consideration of the increasing number of pharmacological therapies available for CD, rising attention is being given to the possible role of elastography in monitoring the response to drugs, as well as to the research of predictive elements of response to therapies.
A pilot study performed by Chen et al. investigated the possible role of SWE in predicting early response to anti-TNFα treatment [21]. Responders presented lower baseline values of SWE compared to non-responders (15.3 kPa vs. 21.3 kPa, p = 0.022) and a significant reduction after 2 weeks of therapy (p = 0.003). Similar results were obtained by Orlando et al., where SE: patients with higher bowel stiffness (defined as a strain ratio between the mesenteric tissue and the bowel wall > or = 2) before starting anti-TNFα treatment showed higher rates of surgery during the follow-up. Moreover, baseline stiffness was lower in patients undergoing mucosal healing throughout the treatment. Finally, higher stiffness at baseline was associated with minor reduction in BWT during treatment [12].

6. Conclusions

Therapeutic targets in CD have changed in the last few years as the mere symptom control was not able to avoid and prevent the progressive bowel damage, but more objective parameters of inflammation are needed to improve patients’ outcomes. IUS is the object of increasing interest in monitoring of disease due to the high accuracy, large availability, low invasiveness, and relatively low cost with sensitivity and specificity comparable to CT and MRI in detecting transmural inflammation and disease complications. In particular, the application of new technologies such as quantitative CEUS and elastography improves IUS accuracy, providing a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of active inflammation and its variation during therapy. We described an approach to evaluate treatment response to biological therapy based not only on standard B-mode and Doppler US but also on CEUS to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of inflammatory activity and elastography to predict bowel stiffness.
However, the good results obtained in a research setting could be different in clinical practice, where more variables should be taken into account, such as different software, scales for the analysis of enhancement intensity, and the presence of expert and non-expert observers.
Further research and validations with different biological therapies and larger sample size are needed to validate the usefulness of IUS in clinical practice and to determine the best parameter and best timing for the assessment of response.

Author Contributions

P.P. and L.E.D.V.: writing; M.A.Z. and M.E.A.: review and editing; F.S. and A.G.: supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Fondazione Roma for the continuous support to our scientific research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Torres, J.; Mehandru, S.; Colombel, J.-F.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Crohn’s disease. Lancet 2016, 389, 1741–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lamb, C.A.; Kennedy, N.A.; Raine, T.; Hendy, P.A.; Smith, P.J.; Limdi, J.K.; Hayee, B.; Lomer, M.C.E.; Parkes, G.C.; Selinger, C.; et al. British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2019, 68 (Suppl. S3), s1–s106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Turner, D.; Ricciuto, A.; Lewis, A.; D’Amico, F.; Dhaliwal, J.; Griffiths, A.M.; Bettenworth, D.; Sandborn, W.J.; Sands, B.E.; Reinisch, W.; et al. STRIDE-II: An Update on the Selecting Therapeutic Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (STRIDE) Initiative of the International Organization for the Study of IBD (IOIBD): Determining Therapeutic Goals for Treat-to-Target strategies in IBD. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1570–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Geyl, S.; Guillo, L.; Laurent, V.; D’Amico, F.; Danese, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L. Transmural healing as a therapeutic goal in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 6, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rimola, J.; Torres, J.; Kumar, S.; Taylor, S.A.; Kucharzik, T. Recent advances in clinical practice: Advances in cross-sectional imaging in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Greenup, A.-J.; Bressler, B.; Rosenfeld, G. Medical Imaging in Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease—Computer Tomography Enterography, Magnetic Resonance Enterography, and Ultrasound. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2016, 22, 1246–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. He, L.; Sun, Y.; Hu, X.; Yao, Q. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance enterography and ultrasound in children with inflammatory bowel diseases: A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 32, 1330–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Taylor, S.A.; Mallett, S.; Bhatnagar, G.; Baldwin-Cleland, R.; Bloom, S.; Gupta, A.; Hamlin, P.J.; Hart, A.L.; Higginson, A.; Jacobs, I.; et al. 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. 2018, 3, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kucharzik, T.; Tielbeek, J.; Carter, D.; Taylor, S.A.; Tolan, D.; Wilkens, R.; Bryant, R.V.; Hoeffel, C.; De Kock, I.; Maaser, C.; et al. ECCO-ESGAR Topical Review on Optimizing Reporting for Cross-Sectional Imaging in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 16, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saevik, F.; Nylund, K.; Hausken, T.; Ødegaard, S.; Gilja, O.H. Bowel Perfusion Measured with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Predicts Treatment Outcome in Patients with Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2014, 20, 2029–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ripollés, T.; Paredes, J.M.; Martínez-Pérez, M.J.; Rimola, J.; Jauregui-Amezaga, A.; Bouzas, R.; Martin, G.; Moreno-Osset, E. Ultrasonographic Changes at 12 Weeks of Anti-TNF Drugs Predict 1-year Sonographic Response and Clinical Outcome in Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2016, 22, 2465–2473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Orlando, S.; Fraquelli, M.; Coletta, M.; Branchi, F.; Magarotto, A.; Conti, C.B.; Mazza, S.; Conte, D.; Basilisco, G.; Caprioli, F. Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging Predicts Therapeutic Outcomes of Patients with Crohn’s Disease Treated with Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Antibodies. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2017, 12, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Quaia, E.; Gennari, A.G.; Cova, M.A. Early Predictors of the Long-term Response to Therapy in Patients With Crohn Disease Derived From a Time-Intensity Curve Analysis After Microbubble Contrast Agent Injection. J. Ultrasound Med. 2018, 38, 947–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Castiglione, F.; Imperatore, N.; Testa, A.; De Palma, G.D.; Nardone, O.M.; Pellegrini, L.; Caporaso, N.; Rispo, A. One-year clinical outcomes with biologics in Crohn’s disease: Transmural healing compared with mucosal or no healing. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 49, 1026–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paredes, J.M.; Moreno, N.; Latorre, P.; Ripollés, T.; Martinez, M.J.; Vizuete, J.; Moreno-Osset, E. Clinical Impact of Sonographic Transmural Healing After Anti-TNF Antibody Treatment in Patients with Crohn’s Disease. Am. J. Dig. Dis. 2019, 64, 2600–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zorzi, F.; Ghosh, S.; Chiaramonte, C.; Lolli, E.; Ventura, M.; Onali, S.; De Cristofaro, E.; Fantini, M.C.; Biancone, L.; Monteleone, G.; et al. Response Assessed by Ultrasonography as Target of Biological Treatment for Crohn’s Disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 2030–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Laterza, L.; Ainora, M.E.; Garcovich, M.; Galasso, L.; Poscia, A.; Di Stasio, E.; Lupascu, A.; Riccardi, L.; Scaldaferri, F.; Armuzzi, A.; et al. Bowel contrast-enhanced ultrasound perfusion imaging in the evaluation of Crohn’s disease patients undergoing anti-TNFα therapy. Dig. Liver Dis. 2020, 53, 729–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kucharzik, T.; Wilkens, R.; D’Agostino, M.-A.; Maconi, G.; Le Bars, M.; Lahaye, M.; Bravatà, I.; Nazar, M.; Ni, L.; Ercole, E.; et al. Early Ultrasound Response and Progressive Transmural Remission After Treatment With Ustekinumab in Crohn’s Disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Albshesh, A.; Ungar, B.; Ben-Horin, S.; Eliakim, R.; Kopylov, U.; Carter, D. Terminal Ileum Thickness During Maintenance Therapy Is a Predictive Marker of the Outcome of Infliximab Therapy in Crohn Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2020, 26, 1619–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Voogd, F.; Bots, S.; Gecse, K.; Gilja, O.H.; D’Haens, G.; Nylund, K. Intestinal Ultrasound Early on in Treatment Follow-up Predicts Endoscopic Response to Anti-TNFα Treatment in Crohn’s Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Y.-J.; Chen, B.-L.; Liang, M.-J.; Chen, S.-L.; Li, X.-H.; Qiu, Y.; Pang, L.-L.; Xia, Q.-Q.; He, Y.; Zeng, Z.-R.; et al. Longitudinal Bowel Behavior Assessed by Bowel Ultrasound to Predict Early Response to Anti-TNF Therapy in Patients with Crohn’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2022, 28, S67–S75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Furfaro, F.; Buono, A.D.; Allocca, M.; D’Amico, F.; Zilli, A.; Gabbiadini, R.; Danese, S. Bowel Ultrasound in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: How Far in the Grayscale? Life 2021, 11, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ilvemark, J.F.K.F.; Hansen, T.; Goodsall, T.M.; Seidelin, J.B.; Farhan, H.A.; Allocca, M.; Begun, J.; Bryant, R.V.; Carter, D.; Christensen, B.; et al. Defining Transabdominal Intestinal Ultrasound Treatment Response and Remission in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Expert Consensus Statement. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 16, 554–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gomollón, F.; Dignass, A.; Annese, V.; Tilg, H.; Van Assche, G.; Lindsay, J.O.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Cullen, G.J.; Daperno, M.; Kucharzik, T.; et al. 3rd European Evidence-based Consensus on the Diagnosis and Management of Crohn’s Disease 2016: Part 1: Diagnosis and Medical Management. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2017, 11, 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Goodsall, T.M.; Nguyen, T.M.; Parker, C.E.; Ma, C.; Andrews, J.M.; Jairath, V.; Bryant, R.V. Systematic Review: Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Scoring Indices for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2020, 15, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dong, J.; Wang, H.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, L.; Gong, J.; Li, Y.; Gu, L.; Li, J. Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in detecting active Crohn’s disease: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur. Radiol. 2013, 24, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramaswamy, P.K.; Vizhi, N.K.; Yelsangikar, A.; Krishnamurthy, A.N.; Bhat, V.; Bhat, N. Utility of bowel ultrasound in assessing disease activity in Crohn’s disease. Indian J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 39, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Castiglione, F.; Testa, A.; Rea, M.; De Palma, G.D.; Diaferia, M.; Musto, D.; Sasso, F.; Caporaso, N.; Rispo, A. Transmural Healing Evaluated by Bowel Sonography in Patients with Crohn’s Disease on Maintenance Treatment with Biologics. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2013, 19, 1928–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Castiglione, F.; Mainenti, P.P.; Testa, A.; Imperatore, N.; De Palma, G.D.; Maurea, S.; Rea, M.; Nardone, O.M.; Sanges, M.; Caporaso, N.; et al. Cross-sectional evaluation of transmural healing in patients with Crohn’s disease on maintenance treatment with anti-TNF alpha agents. Dig. Liver Dis. 2017, 49, 484–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bhatnagar, G.; Rodriguez-Justo, M.; Higginson, A.; Bassett, P.; Windsor, A.; Cohen, R.; Halligan, S.; Taylor, S.A. Inflammation and fibrosis in Crohn’s disease: Location-matched histological correlation of small bowel ultrasound features. Abdom. Radiol. 2020, 46, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Castiglione, F.; Mainenti, P.P.; De Palma, G.D.; Testa, A.; Bucci, L.; Pesce, G.; Camera, L.; Diaferia, M.; Rea, M.; Caporaso, N.; et al. Noninvasive Diagnosis of Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2013, 19, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kucharzik, T.; Wittig, B.M.; Helwig, U.; Börner, N.; Rössler, A.; Rath, S.; Maaser, C.; Naumann, A.; Pelster, G.; Spengler, J.; et al. Use of Intestinal Ultrasound to Monitor Crohn’s Disease Activity. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 15, 535–542.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Calabrese, E.; Rispo, A.; Zorzi, F.; De Cristofaro, E.; Testa, A.; Costantino, G.; Viola, A.; Bezzio, C.; Ricci, C.; Prencipe, S.; et al. Ultrasonography Tight Control and Monitoring in Crohn’s Disease During Different Biological Therapies: A Multicenter Study. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 20, e711–e722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Maconi, G.; Nylund, K.; Ripolles, T.; Calabrese, E.; Dirks, K.; Dietrich, C.F.; Hollerweger, A.; Sporea, I.; Saftoiu, A.; Maaser, C.; et al. EFSUMB Recommendations and Clinical Guidelines for Intestinal Ultrasound (GIUS) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Ultraschall Med. Eur. J. Ultrasound 2018, 39, 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Marin, A.M.; Calapod, O.P.; Moldoveanu, A.C.; Tribus, L.C.; Fierbințeanu-Braticevici, C. Non-invasive Ultrasonographic Score for Assessment of the Severity of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2020, 47, 932–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, C.; Huang, P.-L.; Kang, N.; Zhang, J.; Xiao, M.; Zhang, J.-Y.; Cao, X.-C.; Dai, X.-C. The clinical value of multimodal ultrasound for the evaluation of disease activity and complications in inflammatory bowel disease. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2020, 9, 4146–4155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bots, S.; Nylund, K.; Löwenberg, M.; Gecse, K.; Gilja, O.H.; D’Haens, G. Ultrasound for Assessing Disease Activity in IBD Patients: A Systematic Review of Activity Scores. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12, 920–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Novak, K.L.; Nylund, K.; Maaser, C.; Petersen, F.; Kucharzik, T.; Lu, C.; Allocca, M.; Maconi, G.; de Voogd, F.; Christensen, B.; 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. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2020, 15, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Allocca, M.; Craviotto, V.; Dell’Avalle, C.; Furfaro, F.; Zilli, A.; D’Amico, F.; Bonovas, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Fiorino, G.; Danese, S. Bowel ultrasound score is accurate in assessing response to therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 55, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Celikyay, F.; Yuksekkaya, R.; Kefeli, A. Color Doppler Ultrasound Assessment of Clinical Activity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Curr. Med Imaging Former. Curr. Med Imaging Rev. 2021, 17, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Goodsall, T.M.; Jairath, V.; Feagan, B.G.; Parker, C.E.; Nguyen, T.M.; Guizzetti, L.; Asthana, A.K.; Begun, J.; Christensen, B.; Friedman, A.B.; et al. Standardisation of intestinal ultrasound scoring in clinical trials for luminal Crohn’s disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021, 53, 873–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Sævik, F.; Eriksen, R.; Eide, G.E.; Gilja, O.H.; Nylund, K. Development and Validation of a Simple Ultrasound Activity Score for Crohn’s Disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2020, 15, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hakim, A.; Alexakis, C.; Pilcher, J.; Tzias, D.; Mitton, S.; Paul, T.; Saxena, S.; Pollok, R.; Kumar, S. Comparison of small intestinal contrast ultrasound with magnetic resonance enterography in pediatric Crohn’s disease. JGH Open 2019, 4, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Calabrese, E.; La Seta, F.; Buccellato, A.; Virdone, R.; Pallotta, N.; Corazziari, E.; Cottone, M. Crohn’s Disease: A Comparative Prospective Study of Transabdominal Ultrasonography, Small Intestine Contrast Ultrasonography, and Small Bowel Enema. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2005, 11, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Parente, F.; Greco, S.; Molteni, M.; Anderloni, A.; Sampietro, G.M.; Danelli, P.; Bianco, R.; Gallus, S.; Porro, G.B. 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 2004, 53, 1652–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bettenworth, D.; Bokemeyer, A.; Baker, M.; Mao, R.; Parker, C.E.; Nguyen, T.; Ma, C.; Panés, J.; Rimola, J.; Fletcher, J.G.; et al. Assessment of Crohn’s disease-associated small bowel strictures and fibrosis on cross-sectional imaging: A systematic review. Gut 2019, 68, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Calabrese, E.; Zorzi, F.; Zuzzi, S.; Ooka, S.; Onali, S.; Petruzziello, C.; Lasinio, G.J.; Biancone, L.; Rossi, C.; Pallone, F. Development of a numerical index quantitating small bowel damage as detected by ultrasonography in Crohn’s disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2012, 6, 852–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zorzi, F.; Stasi, E.; Bevivino, G.; Scarozza, P.; Biancone, L.; Zuzzi, S.; Rossi, C.; Pallone, F.; Calabrese, E. A Sonographic Lesion Index for Crohn’s Disease Helps Monitor Changes in Transmural Bowel Damage During Therapy. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 12, 2071–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Serafin, Z.; Białecki, M.; Białecka, A.; Sconfienza, L.M.; Kłopocka, M. Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Detection of Crohn’s Disease Activity: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2015, 10, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ripollés, T.; Martínez-Pérez, M.J.; Paredes, J.M.; Vizuete, J.; Martin, G. The Role of Intravenous Contrast Agent in the Sonographic Assessment of Crohn’s Disease Activity: Is Contrast Agent Injection Necessary? J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 13, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mocci, G.; Migaleddu, V.; Cabras, F.; Sirigu, D.; Scanu, D.; Virgilio, G.; Marzo, M. SICUS and CEUS imaging in Crohn’s disease: An update. J. Ultrasound 2017, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Pecere, S.; Holleran, G.; Ainora, M.E.; Garcovich, M.; Scaldaferri, F.; Gasbarrini, A.; Zocco, M.A. Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). Dig. Liver Dis. 2018, 50, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Serra, C.; Menozzi, G.; Labate, A.M.M.; Giangregorio, F.; Gionchetti, P.; Beltrami, M.; Robotti, D.; Fornari, F.; Cammarota, T. Ultrasound assessment of vascularization of the thickened terminal ileum wall in Crohn’s disease patients using a low-mechanical index real-time scanning technique with a second generation ultrasound contrast agent. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007, 62, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wu, H.; Abenojar, E.C.; Perera, R.; De Leon, A.C.; An, T.; Exner, A.A. Time-intensity-curve Analysis and Tumor Extravasation of Nanobubble Ultrasound Contrast Agents. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2019, 45, 2502–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Beckmann, S.; Simanowski, J.H. Update in Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. Visc. Med. 2020, 36, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zezos, P.; Zittan, E.; Islam, S.; Hudson, J.; Ben-Bassat, O.; Nazarian, A.; Steinhart, H.A.; Silverberg, M.S.; Atri, M. Associations between quantitative evaluation of bowel wall microvascular flow by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and indices of disease activity in Crohn’s disease patients using both bolus and infusion techniques. J. Clin. Ultrasound 2019, 47, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Khorrami, S.; Gisbert, J.P. Editorial: Accumulating data about ustekinumab in refractory Crohn’s disease in real world experience. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 45, 1374–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sigrist, R.M.S.; Liau, J.; Kaffas, A.E.; Chammas, M.C.; Willmann, J.K. Ultrasound Elastography: Review of Techniques and Clinical Applications. Theranostics 2017, 7, 1303–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Dillman, J.R.; Stidham, R.W.; Higgins, P.D.R.; Moons, D.S.; Johnson, L.A.; Rubin, J.M. US Elastography–derived Shear Wave Velocity Helps Distinguish Acutely Inflamed from Fibrotic Bowel in a Crohn Disease Animal Model. Radiology 2013, 267, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vestito, A.; Marasco, G.; Maconi, G.; Festi, D.; Bazzoli, F.; Zagari, R.M. Role of Ultrasound Elastography in the Detection of Fibrotic Bowel Strictures in Patients with Crohn’s Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ultraschall Med. Eur. J. Ultrasound 2019, 40, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gabbiadini, R.; Zacharopoulou, E.; Furfaro, F.; Craviotto, V.; Zilli, A.; Gilardi, D.; Roda, G.; Loy, L.; Fiorino, G.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; et al. Application of Ultrasound Elastography for Assessing Intestinal Fibrosis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Fiction or Reality? Curr. Drug Targets 2021, 22, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Buono, A.D.; Faita, F.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S.; Allocca, M. Ultrasound elastography in inflammatory bowel diseases a systematic review of accuracy compared to histopathological assessment. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Multiparametric ultrasound evaluation in a 35-year-old man with ileal Crohn’s disease before starting biologic therapy. (a) B-mode ultrasound view of the terminal ileum shows thickened bowel wall (5.4 mm) with wall layer preservation. (b) Color Doppler images of the affected segment shows profuse mural blood flow (Limberg score 3). (c) Shear wave elastography of the affected segment providing a measure of tissue stiffness based on a colorimetric scale (blue is indicative of soft tissue). (d) Dual-screen ultrasound representation of the affected bowel, with gray-scale image (right) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) image of matching segment (left). CEUS image shows transmural enhancement.
Figure 1. Multiparametric ultrasound evaluation in a 35-year-old man with ileal Crohn’s disease before starting biologic therapy. (a) B-mode ultrasound view of the terminal ileum shows thickened bowel wall (5.4 mm) with wall layer preservation. (b) Color Doppler images of the affected segment shows profuse mural blood flow (Limberg score 3). (c) Shear wave elastography of the affected segment providing a measure of tissue stiffness based on a colorimetric scale (blue is indicative of soft tissue). (d) Dual-screen ultrasound representation of the affected bowel, with gray-scale image (right) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) image of matching segment (left). CEUS image shows transmural enhancement.
Diagnostics 12 01991 g001
Figure 2. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with the corresponding time–intensity curve in two patients with ileal Crohn’s disease under biological treatment. Baseline evaluation (a). Time–intensity curves of bowel wall enhancement at different time points showing lower enhancement and lower area under the enhancement curve after treatment in responder (b) and no significant difference in perfusion parameters in non-responder (c). Baseline = blue curve, week 2 = red curve, week 6 =green curve, AU = Arbitrary Units.
Figure 2. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with the corresponding time–intensity curve in two patients with ileal Crohn’s disease under biological treatment. Baseline evaluation (a). Time–intensity curves of bowel wall enhancement at different time points showing lower enhancement and lower area under the enhancement curve after treatment in responder (b) and no significant difference in perfusion parameters in non-responder (c). Baseline = blue curve, week 2 = red curve, week 6 =green curve, AU = Arbitrary Units.
Diagnostics 12 01991 g002
Table 1. Multiparametric ultrasound evaluation of response to biological treatment in patients with Crohn’s disease.
Table 1. Multiparametric ultrasound evaluation of response to biological treatment in patients with Crohn’s disease.
ArticlePatients (Number)TreatmentUltrasound EvaluationResults
Saevik, 2014 [10]14AntiTNFαCEUSIncreased bowel perfusion after 1 month of therapy was associated with worse prognosis
Ripolles, 2016 [11]51AntiTNFαBWT
Color doppler flow
CEUS
BWT reduction after 12 weeks of therapy but not color Doppler and CEUS parameters was associated with response to treatment
Orlando, 2018 [12]30AntiTNFαSWEBaseline lower stiffness was associated with higher probability of mucosal healing
Quaia, 2019 [13]115AntiTNFαDynamic CEUSPretreatment values of AUC and PI and their changes after 6 weeks of therapy were statistically correlated to long-term endoscopic and clinical efficacy
Castiglione, 2019 [14]218AntiTNFαBWTBWT < 3 after 1 year of treatment was associated to better prognosis
Paredes, 2019 [15]36AntiTNFαBWT
Color Doppler flow
-BWT and color Doppler flow progressively reduced during treatment-BWT < 3 after 12 weeks of treatment was associated with better outcome at 1 year
Zorzi, 2020 [16]80AntiTNFαSICUSBwt (measured by SICUS) reduction 18 months after therapy start was associated with better long-term outcomes
Laterza, 2021 [17]54InfliximabDynamic CEUSVariation in PI, AUC, Pw, and MTT after 2 weeks of treatment was related to endoscopic response at 12 weeks
Kucharzik, 2022 [18]77UstekinumabBWT
Color Doppler flow
Absence of ultrasound response (BWT and color Doppler flow reduction) after 4 weeks of treatment predicted low endoscopic response after 1 year of treatment
Calabrese, 2022 [16]188Infliximab
Adalimumab
Vedolizumab
Ustekinumab
BWT
Color Doppler Flow
-Mean BWT improvement was observed from baseline up to 1 year of therapy-Greater bwt at baseline was associated with lower rates of TH at 3 months and 1 year after therapy start
Albshesh, 2022 [19]60InfliximabBWTIncreased bwt (> 4 mm) during maintenance phase was associated with treatment failure
De Voogd, 2022 [20]40AntiTNFαBWT
Color Doppler flow
-4/8 weeks and 12/34 weeks after the beginning of therapy, BWT decrease (<3.2 mm) predicted endoscopic remission
-Absence of color Doppler signal and the CEUS parameter wash-out rate improved the prediction model.
Chen, 2022 [21]30InfliximabBWT, LS
CEUS
-BWT and SWE at baseline were higher in non-responders
-BWT, SWE, LS were reduced after 2 weeks of treatment
-SWE at 2 weeks was lower in responder patients
BWT, bowel wall thickness; LS, Limberg score; CEUS, contrast-enhanced ultrasound; SWE, shear wave elastography; SICUS, small intestine contrast-enhanced ultrasound; PI, peak intensity; AUC, area under the curve; Pw, slope coefficient ow wash in; MTT, mean transit time.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Puca, P.; Del Vecchio, L.E.; Ainora, M.E.; Gasbarrini, A.; Scaldaferri, F.; Zocco, M.A. Role of Multiparametric Intestinal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Response to Biologic Therapy in Adults with Crohn’s Disease. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081991

AMA Style

Puca P, Del Vecchio LE, Ainora ME, Gasbarrini A, Scaldaferri F, Zocco MA. Role of Multiparametric Intestinal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Response to Biologic Therapy in Adults with Crohn’s Disease. Diagnostics. 2022; 12(8):1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081991

Chicago/Turabian Style

Puca, Pierluigi, Livio Enrico Del Vecchio, Maria Elena Ainora, Antonio Gasbarrini, Franco Scaldaferri, and Maria Assunta Zocco. 2022. "Role of Multiparametric Intestinal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Response to Biologic Therapy in Adults with Crohn’s Disease" Diagnostics 12, no. 8: 1991. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081991

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop