Next Article in Journal
Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality after Thrombectomy in Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion: A Retrospective, Machine Learning Study
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Trial Validation of Automated Segmentation and Scoring of Pulmonary Cysts in Thoracic CT Scans
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unraveling the Interplay of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and Micro-Satellite Instability in Non-Metastatic Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diagnostics
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/diagnostics14141530
diagnostics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Integration of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Imaging Modalities

by
Clelia Cicerone
1,
Ferdinando D’Amico
1,
Mariangela Allocca
1,
Alessandra Zilli
1,
Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi
1,2,
Silvio Danese
1,2 and
Federica Furfaro
1,*
1
Department of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(14), 1530; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141530
Submission received: 4 June 2024 / Revised: 12 July 2024 / Accepted: 13 July 2024 / Published: 16 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diagnosis and Prognosis of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chronic inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, present diagnostic challenges due to their complex and heterogeneous nature. While histology remains fundamental for accurate diagnosis, a multidisciplinary approach incorporating clinical, endoscopic, and imaging modalities is increasingly recognized as essential for comprehensive evaluation. This article delves into the importance of integrating various diagnostic techniques in the assessment of IBD. Colonoscopy and histology, with its ability to directly visualize the intestinal mucosa, play a central role in the diagnostic process. However, histological analysis alone may not suffice, necessitating the inclusion of advanced imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS). These techniques provide valuable insights into the disease’s extent, severity, and complications, and should be used in conjunction with biochemical parameters. These modalities complement traditional endoscopic and histological findings, offering a more holistic understanding of the disease process. A multidisciplinary approach that incorporates clinical, endoscopic, histological, serological, and imaging assessments enables clinicians to achieve a more accurate and timely diagnosis of IBD. Moreover, this integrated approach facilitates personalized treatment strategies tailored to individual patient needs, ultimately improving clinical outcomes and quality of life for those affected by chronic inflammatory bowel diseases.

1. Introduction

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic immune-mediated conditions, characterized by relapsing and remitting intestinal inflammation. UC primarily affects the colon, causing inflammation limited to the mucosal layer. CD can affect any part of the digestive tract, from the mouth to the anus, and often involves deeper layers beyond the mucosa (transmural inflammation) [1]. According to the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organization (ECCO) guidelines, the diagnosis of CD and UC is based on a combination of clinical, biochemical, stool, endoscopic, and histological investigations [2]. While the precise etiology of IBD remains elusive, it is believed that a combination of genetic predisposition, environmental factors, alterations in the gut microbiome, and dysregulated immune responses contribute to gastrointestinal inflammation [3]. Historically, IBD was most common in North America and Europe, primarily affecting people of Western European descent. By the late 20th century, however, this view was shattered, and IBD is now recognized as a global health concern. Population studies indicate a notable increase in the prevalence and incidence of IBD, with a 46% rise over a two-decade period, affecting approximately 0.2% of the European population, totaling 2.5–3 million individuals [4,5,6]. The incidence of CD in Europe ranged between 0.4 and 22.8 per 100,000 person-years, and the incidence of UC was generally higher, ranging between 2.4 and 44.0 per 100,000 person-years [5]. Various risk factors have been associated with IBD. Meta-analyses have demonstrated an increased risk of CD development (RR 1.61) post-appendectomy and a decreased risk of UC [7,8]. Additionally, antibiotic exposure in infancy has been linked to a heightened risk of CD (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35–2.23) [9]. Further factors, including smoking, urban residence, tonsillectomy, oral contraceptive use, soft drink consumption, vitamin D deficiency, and non–Helicobacter pylori-like enterohepatic Helicobacter species, have been identified as increasing the risk of IBD [10]. Smoking, in particular, is a significant risk factor for CD, with smokers having a higher risk compared with non-smokers. Quitting smoking can help reduce the risk of developing CD and may also improve the course of the disease [10]. Timely and accurate diagnosis is imperative for initiating appropriate treatment and managing disease progression. Early diagnosis is particularly crucial for enhancing treatment outcomes, mitigating or delaying the need for surgery, and improving patients’ quality of life. This review highlights the importance of an integrated diagnostic approach, including clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, imaging techniques, and endoscopy with biopsy, in the diagnosis of IBD (Table 1). A diagnostic algorithm for early detection of the disease is proposed (Figure 1).

2. Clinical Approach

In clinical practice, diagnosing IBD is complex because of the wide variety of gastrointestinal symptoms reported by patients, which are neither specific nor exclusive to IBD [2]. Furthermore, several other gastrointestinal disorders mimic the clinical presentation of IBD, making a differential diagnosis crucial [2]. According to the ECCO consensus, the main gastrointestinal symptoms of UC are visible blood in the stools, rectal urgency, and tenesmus, reported in over 95% of the active disease [11]. In contrast, chronic diarrhea is the most common onset symptom in ileocolonic CD, followed by abdominal pain and weight loss [12]. A significant percentage of patients (up to 20%) with Crohn’s disease present complications such as strictures or fistulas at the time of diagnosis [13]. Stricture disease is a recognized complication of CD and results from recurrent chronic inflammation [14]. The presence of symptoms of perianal disease should raise suspicion of CD, considering that up to 10% of newly diagnosed CD cases present with such involvement [13]. Furthermore, in patients with IBD, symptoms meeting the criteria for IBS, such as chronic abdominal pain associated with altered bowel habits, may be present. In patients with active inflammatory disease, the prevalence of symptoms compatible with IBS can reach 44% and are more common in patients with Crohn’s disease compared with those with ulcerative colitis [15]. An acute onset of symptoms, presence of abdominal pain, bloody diarrhea, and extraintestinal manifestations can strongly suggest the presence of IBD while alternating diarrhea and constipation are more strongly associated with functional disease rather than IBD [16]. Abdominal pain is a typical feature of IBD, and about 71% of patients report this symptom [17]. However, the presence of persistent abdominal pain should prompt physicians to consider other diagnoses beyond IBD, as it is rare in IBD except in cases of severe acute colitis [16]. Acute onset of symptoms with abdominal pain in the right iliac fossa and fever may occur in patients with Crohn’s disease confined to the appendix, mimicking the symptoms of acute appendicitis and leading the patient to emergency surgery. This entity is rare, accounting for 1.8% of all appendicitis patients undergoing emergency surgery [18]. The incidence of appendicular Crohn’s disease is variable and is generally described as 0.2–0.55%. Appendicular Crohn’s disease usually occurs in young people, and approximately 25% of patients have other symptoms associated with Crohn’s disease, such as chronic abdominal pain and chronic diarrhea [19]. According to ECCO statements, there are several clinical scoring systems presently available to classify disease severity in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. The Mayo Clinic Score is an easy composite assessment of clinical symptoms [stool frequency and rectal bleeding] and is the most used assessment in UC, while the most common clinical activity index in CD is the Harvey–Bradshaw Index [20] (Table 2 and Table 3).
The presence of extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) associated with gastrointestinal symptoms should always be investigated [21]. The most common manifestations involve the musculoskeletal system (such as peripheral and axial arthritis), skin (including pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum), hepatobiliary tract, and eyes (episcleritis, anterior uveitis, and iritis) [21]. Finally, approximately 10–15% of IBD cases cannot be definitively classified as ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease [22]. The term “IBDU” (indeterminate inflammatory bowel disease) was used in 2005 to describe those cases where clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and biopsy results suggest the presence of IBD, but a clear distinction between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease cannot be made [23]. Several other gastrointestinal disorders can mimic the clinical presentation of IBD. Distinguishing these conditions from IBD initially involves a combination of clinical evaluation and laboratory tests. All patients with clinical suspicion of IBD should undergo stool examinations, including stool culture and testing for Clostridium difficile infection, to exclude enteric infections such as infectious colitis like Clostridium difficile infection, Salmonella, Shigella, Camphylobacter, Cytomegalovirus, or Yersinia enterocolitis. Other diseases that mimic IBD include gastrointestinal neoplasms and non-infectious enterocolitis such as ischemic colitis, diverticulitis, and irritable bowel syndrome [2]. In the diagnostic workup of inflammatory bowel disease, incorporating a detailed family history is crucial. Patients with a first-degree relative diagnosed with IBD have a higher likelihood of developing the disease themselves compared with those with no family history [24]. The presence of other immune-mediated diseases aids in the diagnosis, as such conditions may precede the clinical manifestations of IBD [25]. Recent research has highlighted the association between IBD and autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). It has been observed that AIP may precede the diagnosis of IBD in a substantial percentage of cases (59% of patients), underscoring the importance of considering autoimmune conditions in the diagnostic process [25].

Biomarkers

IBD is associated with several biochemical alterations as increases in inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin (f-cal) and lactoferrin, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and anemia [2]. Fecal calprotectin, a protein detectable in stool samples that is correlated with increased neutrophils in the intestine, can be a valuable tool in the diagnostic process to rule out IBD [2]. Research suggests that patients with low levels of fecal calprotectin have less than a 1% chance of being diagnosed with IBD [26]. A meta-analysis review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin for IBD. The authors found that the overall sensitivity of fecal calprotectin in detecting IBD was 85.8%, while the specificity was 91.7%, suggesting its ability to rule out IBD. The findings suggested that fecal calprotectin testing, particularly when using a** cut-off value of >50 μg/g, could be a useful non-invasive tool in the diagnostic workup of IBD [27]. A calprotectin level above 50 µg/g on two separate occasions must lead to further investigation such as colonoscopy and/or intestinal imaging to confirm IBD [28]. Other studies have shown that patients with higher levels (>250 µg/g) of calprotectin may be more suggestive of active intestinal inflammation. Patients with calprotectin levels exceeding 250 µg/g have an 8% chance of developing IBD within 1 year, compared with a 1% chance in those with levels below 50 µg/g [29].
However, it is known that calprotectin is not a biomarker specific to IBD. For example, f-cal concentrations are elevated during Salmonella infection (median of 765 µg/g), Campylobacter infection (median of 689 µg/g), and Clostridioides difficile infection (median of 740 µg/g) [30]. Additionally, elevated f-cal concentrations have also been reported in patients with HIV infection [31]. Lactoferrin is an iron-binding glycoprotein also found in neutrophil granules with antimicrobial properties [32]. It was reported that positive lactoferrin correlated with histological inflammation and C-reactive protein and was present in 92% of CD patients and 83.3% of UC patients with intestinal inflammation [32]. Serological markers, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies (ASCAs) and anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCAs), have limited value in making an initial definitive diagnosis of IBD. However, they may help clinicians distinguish between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, predict disease behavior, and determine prognosis [2,33]. Genetic testing for specific IBD-associated polymorphisms contributes to personalized risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making but is currently not recommended for the routine diagnosis of CD and UC [2,34].

3. Endoscopy

Endoscopy plays a fundamental role in the diagnosis of IBD [35]. It provides direct visualization of the gastrointestinal tract, allowing clinicians to assess the extent and severity of inflammation, identify characteristic features of IBD, and guide treatment decisions [35]. For patients with clinical presentations suggestive of IBD, colonoscopy with intubation of the terminal ileum is recommended as part of the diagnostic workup [36]. To ensure thorough assessment and accurate diagnosis, it is recommended to obtain at least two biopsies from six different areas during colonoscopy, including the terminal ileum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum [36]. The visualization of the ileum is essential for the differential diagnosis between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, especially in patients with symptoms and/or radiographic findings suggesting a diagnosis of CD. When ulcers or erosions are present in the ileum, biopsies are mandatory [37]. Furthermore, ileocolonoscopy was found to have an accuracy of 89% in differentiating UC from CD in a prospective study [38]. Classic endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis include erythema, loss of normal vascularity, mucosal granularity, erosions, friability, bleeding, and ulcerations. The disease generally begins in the rectum, extending proximally in a continuous, circumferential pattern [39]. Skip and patchy lesions are not typically associated with ulcerative colitis (UC) and refer to areas of disease involvement that are separated by normal or unaffected tissue [36]. Recent evidence suggests that skip lesions, particularly appendiceal orifice inflammation (AOI), can occur as well with a prevalence from 7.9 to 75.0% in UC patients observed endoscopically [40]. Appendiceal orifice inflammation (AOI) refers to inflammation affecting the area around the opening of the appendix into the cecum and is considered a type of skip lesion in the context of UC [41]. Rectal sparing or patchy disease occurred in 32.1% and 30.4% of patients by endoscopy, and no correlation was noted among any specific type or combination of medication use [42]. Up to 20% of patients with colitis can have mild inflammatory changes in the terminal ileum called backwash ileitis (extension of the inflammatory process into the terminal ileum) [36]. The presence of backwash ileitis is not associated with greater disease severity. It is often linked with pancolitis, a significantly shorter disease duration (p < 0.005), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (p < 0.001) [43]. Endoscopic features suggestive of CD include aphthous ulcers, deep ulcers, serpiginous ulcers, cobblestoning, and stenosis [39]. Features that favor CD ileitis include extensive inflammation, patchy inflammation, and stricturing of the terminal ileum or ileocecal valve [44,45]. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) should be considered in patients with symptoms suggestive of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract involvement, which occur in up to 16% of patients with CD [45]. During EGD, at least two biopsies should be obtained from the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum to aid in diagnosis [36]. Endoscopic findings suggestive of upper GI CD may include aphthous ulcers, strictures, fistulas, and erythema [36]. These findings, along with histological examination of biopsy samples, can help confirm the diagnosis of CD and guide appropriate management strategies [36]. Endoscopic scores have been developed for UC and CD to assess disease severity. These systems should always be used in clinical decision-making. The most commonly used score for UC is the Mayo score. For CD, the most commonly used is the Simple Endoscopic Scoring System for Crohn’s Disease (SES-CD) [35] (Table 4 and Table 5).

4. Histological Diagnosis

According to ECCO’s position, histology can confirm the diagnosis of IBD, exclude dysplasia, exclude coexistent conditions or complications, and determine the severity and extension of disease (UC or CD) [46]. However, several diseases can histologically mimic inflammatory bowel disease. Correlating histological features with clinical and endoscopic findings is essential to facilitate accurate diagnosis [47]. In the evaluation of biopsies, three main categories may be considered as follows: crypt architectural, lamina propria cellularity, and epithelial abnormalities [46,48,49].

4.1. Crypt Architectural

Normal crypts in an oriented biopsy are parallel to each other and extend from the surface to the muscular mucosa. Biopsy orientation is essential because imperfect orientation can give a false impression of crypt distortion or shortening [50]. Crypt distortion in colonic mucosa is defined by the presence of non-parallel crypts, with variable or cystically dilated diameters compared to normal (minimum of 10%), or by increased crypt branching (if less than 10% of all crypts, it is not abnormal) and/or variation in crypt size and shape (reduced proportion of total colonic mucosa area occupied by crypts) [46]. Crypt shortening (atrophy) is an increase, usually variable, in the distance between the crypt bases and the muscular mucosa. Villous atrophy in ileal mucosa is defined as the presence of shortened villi with a villus-to-crypt ratio of less than 3:1 [46,48].

4.2. Lamina Propria Cellularity: Chronic and Acute Inflammation and Epithelioid Cell Granuloma

In the normal large intestine, the majority of cells are located in the upper third of the lamina propria with a ratio between the superficial and basal thirds that is nearly 2:1 [50]. The lamina propria harbors a diverse array of immune and non-immune cells, including lymphocytes, macrophages, fibroblasts endothelial cells, plasma cells, and granulocytes [51]. During inflammation, these resident cells undergo proliferation and recruitment, leading to an overall increase in cellular density within the lamina propria [52]. An increased number of plasma cells (basal plasmacytosis), lymphocytes, histiocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils are characteristic of all types of colorectal inflammation and are not specific to IBD [46,48]. In IBD biopsies, chronic inflammation is defined as an increase in the number of lymphocytes and plasma cells in the lamina propria [46,48]. Eosinophils do not define chronic inflammation and are relatively rare compared with plasma cells and lymphocytes. There is an unknown variation in the site of intramucosal eosinophils (they are commonly present in the proximal colon and more present in samples obtained in April and May) that likely reflects different allergen exposure [52]. Acute inflammation is defined histologically by the presence of neutrophils, either in the lamina propria, crypt epithelium, or crypt lumens. Cryptitis is defined as the presence of at least one neutrophil in the crypt epithelium, while a crypt abscess is defined as the presence of more than one neutrophil in the crypt epithelium the lumen of the crypt [48,53]. Two main patterns of increase in the lamina’s cellularity are described to be diffuse and discontinuous [46,48,49]. Within diffuse increase, there are two subgroups including a diffuse superficial increase, which is limited to the surface of the lamina propria, and a diffuse transmucosal increase, resulting in a uniform transmucosal distribution of cells [46,48,49]. A discontinuous increase is a variable (focal or patchy) increase in lamina propria cellularity in the biopsy specimen and is not limited to the superficial zone [48,49]. An epithelioid cell granuloma is a collection of at least five epithelioid cells (activated histiocytes), accompanied or not by multinucleated giant cells [54,55]. In CD, a granuloma never has caseous necrosis and typically shows no confluence with other granulomas [54,55]. Epithelioid granulomas are not specific to IBD. However, they represent one of the best histological criteria for distinguishing Crohn’s disease (CD) from UC. Among patients with CD, granulomas are documented in biopsy samples in only 12% of cases [56].

4.3. Epithelial Abnormalities

According to ECCO’s definitions, the epithelial abnormalities in IBD are mucin depletion, i.e., a reduction in the number of goblet cells or a reduction in mucin droplets. Pyloric metaplasia is the replacement of the original epithelium with glands resembling those in the gastric antrum and surface epithelial damage, e.g., focal cell loss, flattening, erosions, and ulcers that reflect the activity of disease [46,48,49].
In conclusion, the most frequent alterations in IBD include abnormal crypt architecture, basal plasmacytosis, increased cellularity of the lamina propria, mucin depletion, granulomas, crypt abscesses, cryptitis, and ulcerations [55,57,58]. While in infectious colitis, it is common to observe acute inflammatory changes such as cryptitis, crypt abscesses, lamina propria neutrophils, and edema. Basal plasmacytosis is the strongest predictor of IBD [57,58,59,60] (Table 6).

5. New Advance Endoscopic Techniques

“Dye-chromoendoscopy” is a technique used during endoscopic examinations to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract mucosa [61]. This method involves applying different dyes directly onto the mucosa, which highlights subtle changes in tissue structures and aids in the detection of abnormalities such as dysplasia, polyps, or early-stage cancers. Endoscopists typically use dyes like indigo carmine or methylene blue to enhance visualization [61]. In a recent study, chromoendoscopy was associated with a higher dysplasia detection rate than white-light endoscopy in UC patients and helped to predict neoplastic changes during the endoscopic procedure [62]. Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) is widely used in endoscopy to enhance the details of mucosal and vascular patterns without dye application [63,64]. VCE includes various optical technologies such as narrow-band imaging (NBI; Olympus), flexible imaging color enhancement (FICE; Fujinon), and blue laser light/linked color imaging (BLI/LCI; Fujifilm) [63]. These techniques use optical filters and/or digital processing to improve the visualization of mucosa and vascular structures without requiring the application of dyes [64]. This advanced imaging technology represents an alternative to traditional chromoendoscopy, offering detailed images of the gastrointestinal mucosa. NBI enhances contrast by illuminating the mucosa with specific wavelengths of light, highlighting surface patterns and vascular structures [64,65]. This improved visualization aids in the detection and characterization of dysplasia in UC [65]. FICE and iSCAN are based on the same physical principle as NBI, but because of a computed spectral estimation technology, they are not dependent on the presence of optical filters inside the video endoscope [66,67,68]. Neuman et al. demonstrated that iSCAN (Pentax) could specifically predict, without histological examination, the extent of inflammation in 92.31% of patients and disease activity in 89.74% of patients with IBD [69]. Additionally, new endoscopic devices allow real-time in vivo histology during endoscopic examination [66,70]. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a diagnostic imaging technique used during endoscopic procedures to obtain real-time, high-resolution images of the gastrointestinal mucosa at the cellular level. CLE allows real-time in vivo histology imaging at approximately 1000 times magnification and approximately 1 micron resolution [63]. This technique involves illuminating the mucosal surface with a low-power laser and collecting the reflected fluorescent light. CLE relies on tissue fluorescence for imaging; therefore, the use of an intravenous contrast agent, such as fluorescein (1.0–5.0 mL 10%), is generally required. Fluorescein increases tissue contrast and improves the visualization of cellular structures, aiding in the identification and characterization of abnormalities in the gastrointestinal mucosa [63]. Several studies have explored the utility of endomicroscopy in the in vivo diagnosis of mucosal changes associated with inflammatory bowel disease [70,71,72]. In particular, comparative studies have been conducted between images obtained through confocal endomicroscopy and histological images of biopsy samples obtained during colonoscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis. These studies demonstrate that images captured with confocal microendoscopy can provide information equivalent to conventional histology [70,71,72]. Confocal laser endomicroscopy has demonstrated the capability to detect microscopic inflammatory changes in a macroscopically non-inflamed, normal-appearing mucosal pattern [73]. Additionally, a new classification of inflammatory activity in ulcerative colitis using endomicroscopy has been proposed, which includes assessments of crypt architecture and microvascular alterations [74]. In that study, endomicroscopy was found to be reliable for real-time assessment of inflammatory activity in ulcerative colitis, with good correlations observed with histological findings (Spearman’s rho, both p < 0.001) [74]. Furthermore, CLE can play a significant role in IBDU as a valuable tool in the diagnostic algorithm. Hundorfean et al. proposed CLE-based criteria to help in this differential diagnosis. According to their findings, characteristic features observed with CLE in CD include mucosal fissures, focal cryptitis, granulomas, and microscopic inflammation of the terminal ileum. In contrast, patients with UC often exhibit characteristic bifid, shortened, and branched crypts, along with microscopically normal terminal ileum [75].

6. Wireless Video Capsule Endoscopy and Enteroscopy

Wireless video capsule endoscopy (VCE), first approved in 2000, was developed to allow non-invasive visualization of the entire small intestine [76]. It has been observed that up to 30% of the patients with Crohn’s disease have only small bowel involvement, without involvement of the terminal ileum; in these patients, traditional endoscopic examinations do not allow for disease diagnosis [77]. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends VCE as the initial diagnostic modality to investigate the small bowel in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and negative findings on ileocolonoscopy, provided there are no obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis [78]. The non-invasive nature of VCE represents a significant advantage due to its ability to detect early mucosal lesions with higher sensitivity than conventional radiology [79,80]. Petruziello et al. demonstrated that VCE is particularly useful in patients with suspected CD who have previously undergone endoscopic and radiological negative examinations, being able to detect lesions compatible with CD in the small intestine in almost a third of patients [81]. VCE also documented proximal lesions of the small intestine in patients with known Crohn’s disease in a high percentage of cases (up to 50%), especially in those with Crohn’s disease localized to the terminal ileum [82]. Typical VCE findings of CD include erythema, erosions, ulcerations, and strictures [80]. VCE examination leads to a risk of capsule retention, especially in patients with suspected strictures. Capsule retention has been reported in up to 13% of patients undergoing capsule studies for CD [83]. However, the development of patency capsules has reduced the risk of capsule retention in patients with known or suspected strictures [82]. Given the high diagnostic sensitivity of less invasive tests for studying the small intestine, device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) has a limited role in the initial evaluation of patients with suspected IBD [84]. DAE is a generic term for the assisted progression of an enteroscope into the small bowel [85]. The assistance is provided by overtubes, balloon catheters, or other stiffening devices. Currently, the available systems are enteroscopy with a semi-rigid overtube, double-balloon enteroscopy, single-balloon enteroscopy, and spiral enteroscopy [85]. DAE may be preferable to VCE if there is a clinical suspicion of obstruction because it allows for therapeutic intervention, avoiding capsule retention, or if there is a strong clinical suspicion of CD but previous radiological, endoscopic, and VCE investigations are inconclusive [84]. The disadvantages of DAE include the invasiveness of the exam, the need for sedation, occasional difficulty in exploring the entire small intestine, and the time and costs involved. However, its advantages include the ability to perform biopsies and directly visualize atypical lesions [84]. Heine et al. showed that enteroscopy was able to diagnose CD of the small intestine in up to 30% of cases [86]. Furthermore, in patients with a high clinical suspicion of CD presenting with chronic diarrhea, abdominal pain, perianal lesions, and systemic symptoms, the diagnostic accuracy of DAE in diagnosing CD is approximately 60% [87].

7. Advanced Imaging Techniques

Advanced imaging techniques, including computed tomography enterography (CTE), magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), and intestinal ultrasound (IUS), provide complementary information useful in the diagnosis of IBD by contributing to the assessment of the extent of small bowel involvement in Crohn’s disease, evaluating the presence of complications, and assessing disease activity [88,89]. According to ECCO and ESGAR (European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology) guidelines, all patients with suspected and/or symptomatic small bowel disease can be investigated with radiological imaging techniques. The choice of the first investigation is based often on local availability and expertise [89]. Each examination should specify the number and anatomical location of inflamed intestinal segments, including skip lesions, specifying the total length of the segments affected by inflammation [90]. Parameters used to define inflammation include bowel wall thickness (BWT) (with a cut-off for the presence of mural inflammation both for the small and large intestine > 3 mm) [90,91]; mural changes such as ulcerations and edema [91,92]; increased intestinal vascularity, reflecting neoangiogenesis in inflamed tissue [93]; and finally, the presence and location of perienteric inflammatory alterations such as mesenteric adipocyte proliferation [94]. MRE has become a widely accepted method for conducting a detailed assessment of the small intestine in patients with Crohn’s disease. The METRIC study, a multicenter study that compared the diagnostic accuracy of MRE and ultrasound for the presence, extent, and activity of small bowel Crohn’s disease in newly diagnosed patients, showed an MRE sensitivity of 80% for assessing the extent and 97% for the presence of small bowel disease. The specificity of MRE for evaluating the extent of small bowel disease was approximately 95% [95]. Several indices have been developed to assess luminal activity in MRE. The most widely used MRE activity index [MaRIA] is a composite index that considers bowel wall thickness, quantifies enhancement in the bowel after gadolinium injection, and identifies ulceration and bowel edema [20]. Recently, another index, the Simplified Magnetic Resonance Activity Index (MARIAs), has also been developed. MARIAs can be calculated without enhancement and has shown strong correlations with SES-CD [96]. Intestinal ultrasound has emerged as a valuable tool for small bowel evaluation, offering several advantages over other imaging techniques. IUS is a non-invasive procedure that does not involve needles or radiation exposure, assists in real-time clinical decisions, is cost-effective, requires no oral preparation, and is easily reproducible. This makes it a safer and more comfortable experience for patients compared with CTE and MRE [20,97,98]. IUS can effectively visualize significant portions of the bowel such as most of the large intestine and major parts of the small intestine, with the exception of the proximal jejunum. For optimal visualization of the bowel wall layers, which are typically less than 3 mm thick, a transducer frequency of at least 5 MHz is necessary [20]. The diagnostic accuracy of IUS was 91% for the localization of disease, with a sensitivity of 92% [95,99]. In CEUS (contrast-enhancement ultrasound), the uses of intravenous contrast provide a more quantitative assessment of mural and extramural vascularity [98]. Its routine use for Crohn’s disease activity assessment is not yet established, and the IUS remains the preferred method because of its practicality and established role in clinical practice. However, CEUS may play a future role in specific situations like differentiating inflammation from fibrosis [98]. CTE of the abdomen and pelvis with luminal distension and intravenous contrast is another valuable tool for evaluating IBD, particularly Crohn’s disease. It provides detailed information about bowel wall involvement, complications like strictures and fistulas, and mesenteric vessel abnormalities [89]. However, the potential for radiation exposure necessitates a careful evaluation of risks and benefits before performing a CT scan. Its ability to rapidly assess the entire gastrointestinal tract and guide interventional procedures makes it invaluable for patients especially in the presence of complicated disease [89]. Recent advances in medical imaging have also included the use of several techniques to evaluate fibrosis. We know that the presence of stenosis disease is associated with a 4–5-fold higher need for surgical resection over time in CD [100]. So, the early diagnosis of fibrosis allows for the prediction of disease progression risk and the need for intervention [100]. These techniques encompass novel cross-sectional imaging modalities like positron emission tomography (PET), specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences such as diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), an advanced sequence on magnetic resonance imaging that maps the diffusion of water molecules in biological tissues, and ultrasound-based elastography technologies, a non-invasive ultrasonographic tool to detect the tissue stiffness of stenotic bowel. The strain rate is a measure of the rate of deformation and so a measure of fibrosis [101,102]. Some authors have developed a hybrid biomarker using three enterographic/PET biomarkers, showing significant differences in the fibrosis group compared with the group with active fibrosis and inflammation [103]. Foti et al. instead demonstrated, through a combination of parameters derived from conventional MR sequences and DWI, that a restricted diffusion pattern detected by DWI in the intestinal wall is associated with the presence of active inflammation and not fibrosis [104]. Fraquelli et al. documented elevated strain elastography ratio values for patients with fibrotic strictures compared with those with moderate fibrosis or inflammation [105]. Radiological imaging techniques offer valuable tools for the diagnosis of IBD. The choice of imaging modality depends on the specific clinical question, patient factors, and availability of resources. Balancing the advantages of detailed visualization and diagnostic accuracy with the potential drawbacks of radiation exposure, contrast agent administration, and costs is crucial for optimizing patient care (Table 7).

8. Future Directions—Pre-Clinical Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Early clinical diagnosis is always to be sought, but several studies indicate that a significant number of patients experience gastrointestinal symptoms more than 6 months before receiving a diagnosis [106]. These symptoms may correlate with abnormalities in biological tests such as elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), leukocytes, increased fecal calprotectin, abnormalities in alanine aminotransferase, or decreased levels of hemoglobin, iron, folate, or vitamins D2 and D3 alterations [106]. This preclinical phase of IBD is often attributed to delayed diagnosis [106]. Vestergaard et al. observed the most significant differences in laboratory tests in the year immediately preceding the diagnosis. Most of the detected abnormalities (excluding fecal calprotectin) did not exceed normal test values, likely explaining why they are not further investigated [107]. This evidence has prompted the development of risk models to predict the likelihood of developing IBD. Such predictive tools could facilitate early diagnosis in asymptomatic patients [108]. In order to minimize diagnostic delays, Danese et al. developed a tool to identify early CD. The “Red Flags questionnaire” is a tool comprising relevant signs and symptoms suggestive of IBD, such as nocturnal diarrhea, the presence of complex perianal fistula or abscess, weight loss, chronic abdominal pain, the absence of rectal urgency, positive family history of IBD, and mild fever in the last 3 months. Subjects with a Red Flags score ≥ 8 were significantly more likely to have Crohn’s disease. These patients underwent laboratory tests including blood cell count, serum C-reactive protein, and fecal calprotectin (FC), and were subjected to IUS. The Red Flags questionnaire combined with elevated fecal calprotectin (FC > 250 ng/g) significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy of CD with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 72% [109,110].

9. Discussion

The integration of evidence from multiple approaches allows for early diagnosis, improves diagnostic accuracy, and facilitates differentiation between CD and UC. Histological examination, along with endoscopic, clinical, and imaging data, confirms the diagnosis of IBD or helps to exclude it. The duration of diagnostic delay is associated with an increased risk of intestinal stenosis and intestinal surgery in Crohn’s disease [111,112]. Several studies confirm that there is a preclinical phase that begins much earlier than previously thought, especially in Crohn’s disease. In the future, we should develop strategies to identify individuals at risk of developing the disease before it manifests, addressing risk factors such as smoking, diet, and environmental factors. Imaging acquired through MRE, CTE, and IUS is valuable for diagnosis, particularly in patients with small intestine involvement, but it does not confirm chronic inflammatory disease. For patients with clinical suspicion of Crohn’s disease, it is recommended to initially perform an abdominal ultrasound because of its non-invasiveness and immediate feasibility [113,114,115]. Histological examination plays a crucial role in undefined cases of IBD, as it can definitively exclude or confirm the diagnosis [58,59]. The potential of confocal laser endomicroscopy to evaluate inflammation without requiring biopsies holds promise and could improve the efficiency and accuracy of assessing IBD [69,71,73]. Further studies are necessary to validate CLE’s capability to assess inflammation thoroughly. However, there are currently no studies on the use of CLE in patients without a prior diagnosis of IBD, and the role of CLE in determining the actual subtype of IBDU has yet to be determined. Ultimately, within the diagnostic algorithm, the gastroenterologist plays a fundamental role in determining the extent and severity of the disease through endoscopic examination, confirming or excluding small intestine involvement through VCE and IUS, and, potentially, with the advent of CLE, confirming the histological diagnosis of IBD.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.F. and C.C.; methodology, F.F.; software, F.F.; validation, F.F. and C.C.; formal analysis, F.F.; investigation, C.C.; resources, C.C.; data curation, C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C.; writing—review and editing, F.F., F.D., M.A., A.Z., S.D. and T.L.P. visualization; supervision, F.F.; project administration, F.F.; funding acquisition, C.C. 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

All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

F. Furfaro received consulting fees from Amgen and AbbVie and lecture fees from Janssen and Pfizer. F. D’Amico served as a speaker for Sandoz, Janssen, Galapagos, Omega Pharma, Takeda, and Tillotts; he also served as a consultant for Ferring and as an advisory board member for Galapagos, Abbvie, and Nestlè. S. Danese served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Schering-Plough, AbbVie, Actelion, Alphawasserman, AstraZeneca, Cellerix, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, Genentech, Grunenthal, Johnson and Johnson, Millenium Takeda, MSD, Nikkiso Europe GmbH, Novo Nordisk, Nycomed, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, UCB Pharma, and Vifor. Mariangela Allocca received consulting fees from Nikkiso Europe, Mundipharma, Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, and Ferring. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Zhang, Y.Z.; Li, Y.Y. Inflammatory bowel disease: Pathogenesis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Maaser, C.; Sturm, A.; Vavricka, S.R.; Kucharzik, T.; Fiorino, G.; Annese, V.; Calabrese, E.; Baumgart, D.C.; Bettenworth, D.; Nunes, P.B.; et al. ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in IBD Part 1: Initial diagnosis, monitoring of known IBD, detection of complications. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2019, 13, 144–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Strober, W.; Fuss, I.; Mannon, P. The fundamental basis of inflammatory bowel disease. J. Clin. Investig. 2007, 117, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ng, S.C.; Shi, H.Y.; Hamidi, N.; Underwood, F.E.; Tang, W.; Benchimol, E.I.; Panaccione, R.; Ghosh, S.; Wu, J.C.Y.; Chan, F.K.L.; et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in the 21st century: A systematic review of population-based studies. Lancet 2018, 390, 2769–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zhao, M.; Gönczi, L.; Lakatos, P.L.; Burisch, J. The Burden of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Europe in 2020. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2021, 15, 1573–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Caviglia, G.P.; Garrone, A.; Bertolino, C.; Vanni, R.; Bretto, E.; Poshnjari, A.; Tribocco, E.; Frara, S.; Armandi, A.; Astegiano, M.; et al. Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Population Study in a Healthcare District of North-West Italy. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 13, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Deng, P.; Wu, J. Meta-analysis of the association between appendiceal orifice inflammation and appendectomy and ulcerative colitis. Rev. Esp. Enferm. Dig. 2016, 108, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kaplan, G.G.; Jackson, T.; Sands, B.E.; Frisch, M.; Andersson, R.E.; Korzenik, J. The risk of developing Crohn’s disease after an appendectomy: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 103, 2925–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Shaw, S.Y.; Blanchard, J.F.; Bernstein, C.N. Association between the use of antibiotics in the first year of life and pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 105, 2687–2692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Piovani, D.; Danese, S.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Nikolopoulos, G.K.; Lytras, T.; Bonovas, S. Environmental risk factors for inflammatory bowel diseases: An umbrella review of meta-analyses. Gastroenterology 2019, 157, 647–659.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dignass, A.; Eliakim, R.; Magro, F.; Maaser, C.; Chowers, Y.; Geboes, K.; Mantzaris, G.; Reinisch, W.; Colombel, J.F.; Vermeire, S. Second European evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis part 1: Definitions and diagnosis. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2012, 6, 965–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Van Assche, G.; Dignass, A.; Panes, J.; Beaugerie, L.; Karagiannis, J.; Allez, M.; Ochsenkühn, T.; Orchard, T.; Rogler, G.; Louis, E.; et al. The second European evidence-based Consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Definitions and diagnosis. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2010, 4, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yoo, J.H.; Holubar, S.; Rieder, F. Fibrostenotic strictures in Crohn’s disease. Intest. Res. 2020, 18, 379–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rieder, F.; Fiocchi, C.; Rogler, G. Mechanisms, Management, and Treatment of Fibrosis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Gastroenterology 2017, 152, 340–350.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Halpin, S.J.; Ford, A.C. Prevalence of symptoms meeting criteria for irritable bowel syndrome in inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 107, 1474–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bruce, E.S. From Symptom to Diagnosis: Clinical Distinctions Among Various Forms of Intestinal Inflammation. Gastroenterology 2004, 126, 1518–1532. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zeitz, J.; Ak, M.; Müller-Mottet, S.; Scharl, S.; Biedermann, L.; Fournier, N.; Frei, P.; Pittet, V.; Scharl, M.; Fried, M.; et al. Pain in IBD Patients: Very Frequent and Frequently Insufficiently Taken into Account. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Agha, F.P.; Ghahremani, G.G.; Panella, J.S.; Kaufman, M.W. Appendicitis as the initial manifestation of Crohn’s disease: Radiologic features and prognosis. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1987, 149, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Han, H.; Kim, H.; Rehman, A.; Jang, S.M.; Paik, S.S. Appendiceal Crohn’s disease clinically presenting as acute appendicitis. World J. Clin. Cases 2014, 2, 888–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sturm, A.; Maaser, C.; Calabrese, E.; Annese, V.; Fiorino, G.; Kucharzik, T.; Vavricka, S.R.; Verstockt, B.; van Rheenen, P.; Baumgart, D.C.; et al. ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in IBD Part 2: IBD scores and general principles and technical aspects. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2019, 13, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Harbord, M.; Annese, V.; Vavricka, S.R.; Allez, M.; Acosta, M.B.-D.; Borberg, K.; Burisch, J.; De Vos, M.; De Vries, A.-M.; Dick, A.D.; et al. The first European evidence-based consensus on extra-intestinal manifestations in inflammatory bowel disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2016, 10, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Prenzel, F.; Uhlig, H.H. Frequency of indeterminate colitis in children and adults with IBD—A metaanalysis. J. Crohn’s Colitis. 2009, 3, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Burakoff, R.J. Indeterminate colitis: Clinical spectrum of disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2004, 38 (Suppl. S1), S41–S43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Torres, J.; Gomes, C.; Jensen, C.B.; Agrawal, M.; Ribeiro-Mourão, F.; Jess, T.; Colombel, J.F.; Allin, K.H.; Burisch, J. Risk Factors for Developing Inflammatory Bowel Disease within and across Families with a Family History of IBD. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2023, 27, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Eder, P.; Verstock, B.; Culver, E.; Dragoni, G.; Kredel, L.I.; Wypych, J.; de Paredes, A.G.G.; Kaniewska, M.; Leibovitzh, H.; Lobaton, T.; et al. Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Real-World Multicentre Collaborative ECCO CONFER Study. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2023, 24, 1791–1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Menees, S.B.; Powell, C.; Kurlander, J.; Goel, A.; Chey, W.D. A meta-analysis of the utility of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to exclude inflammatory bowel disease in adults with IBS. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2015, 110, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dajti, E.; Frazzoni, L.; Iascone, V.; Secco, M.; Vestito, A.; Fuccio, L.; Eusebi, L.H.; Fusaroli, P.; Rizzello, F.; Calabrese, C.; et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Diagnostic performance of faecal calprotectin in distinguishing inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome in adults. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2023, 58, 1120–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Colugo, J.; Colwill, M.; Pollok, A.P.R.; Patel, K.; Honap, S. Biomarkers in inflammatory bowel disease: A practical guide. Herap Adv. Gastroenterol. 2024, 9, 17562848241251600. [Google Scholar]
  29. McFarlane, M.; Chambers, S.; Malik, A.; Lee, B.; Sung, E.; Nwokolo, C.; Waugh, N.; Arasaradnam, R. Clinical outcomes at 12 months and risk of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with an intermediate raised fecal calprotectin: A ‘real-world’ view. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e011041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dróżdż, M.; Biesiada, G.; Pituch, H.; Wultańska, D.; Obuch-Woszczatyński, P.; Piotrowski, M.; Kędzierska, J.; Michalak, M.; Garlicki, A.; Czepiel, J. The level of fecal calprotectin significantly correlates with Clostridium difficile infection severity. Folica Med. Cracov 2019, 59, 53–65. [Google Scholar]
  31. Eckard, A.R.; Hughes, H.Y.; Hagood, N.L.B.; O’Riordan, M.A.; Labbato, D.; Kosco, J.C.; Scott, S.E.; McComsey, G.A. Fecal calprotectin is elevated in HIV and related to systemic inflammation. J. Acquis. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2021, 86, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Vieira, A.; Fang, C.B.; Rolim, E.G.; Klug, W.A.; Steinwurz, F.; Rossini, L.G.; Candelária, P.A. Inflammatory bowel disease activity assessed by fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin: Correlation with laboratory parameters, clinical, endoscopic and histological indexes. BMC Res. Notes 2009, 2, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zapata-Cobo, P.; Salvador-Martín, S.; Velasco, M.; Palomino, L.M.; Clemente, S.; Segarra, O.; Moreno-Álvarez, A.; Fernández-Lorenzo, A.; Pérez-Moneo, B.; Montraveta, M. Polymorphisms indicating risk of inflammatory bowel disease or antigenicity to anti-TNF drugs as biomarkers of response in children. Pharmacol. Res. 2023, 194, 106859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Venema, W.T.U.; Voskuil, M.D.; Dijkstra, G.; Weersma, R.K.; Festen, E.A. The genetic background of inflammatory bowel disease: From correlation to causality. J. Pathol. 2017, 241, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shergill, A.K.; Lightdale, J.R.; Bruining, D.H.; Acosta, R.D.; Chandrasekhara, V.; Chathadi, K.V.; Decker, G.A.; Early, D.S.; Evans, J.A.; Fanelli, R.D.; et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015, 81, 1101–1121.e1–e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Mowat, C.; Cole, A.; Windsor, A.; Ahmad, T.; Arnott, I.; Driscoll, R.; Mitton, S.; Orchard, T.; Rutter, M.; Younge, L.; et al. Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults. Gut 2011, 60, 571–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. McHugh, J.B.; Appelman, H.D.; McKenna, B.J. The diagnostic value of endoscopic terminal ileum biopsies. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2007, 102, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pera, A.; Bellando, P.; Caldera, D.; Ponti, V.; Astegiano, M.; Barletti, C.; David, E.; Arrigoni, A.; Rocca, G.; Verme, G. Colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Diagnostic accuracy and proposal of an endoscopic score. Gastroenterology 1987, 92, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gastroenterology, H.N.A.S.F.P.; America, C.F.O.; Bousvaros, A.; A Antonioli, D.; Colletti, R.B.; Dubinsky, M.C.; Glickman, J.N.; Gold, B.D.; Griffiths, A.M.; Jevon, G.P.; et al. Differentiating ulcerative colitis from Crohn disease in children and young adults: Report of a working group of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of America. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2007, 44, 653–674. [Google Scholar]
  40. Park, S.H.; Loftus, E.V.; Jr Yang, S.K. Appendiceal skip inflammation and ulcerative colitis. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2014, 59, 2050–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anzai, H.; Hata, K.; Kishikawa, J.; Ishii, H.; Yasuda, K.; Otani, K.; Nishikawa, T.; Tanaka, T.; Kiyomatsu, T.; Kawai, K.; et al. Appendiceal orifice inflammation is associated with proximal extension of disease in patients with ulcerative colitis. Colorectal Dis. 2016, 18, O278–O282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Joo, M.; Odze, R.D. Rectal sparing and skip lesions in ulcerative colitis: A comparative study of endoscopic and histologic findings in patients who underwent proctocolectomy. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2010, 34, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Abdelrazeq, A.S.; Wilson, T.R.; Leitch, D.L.; Lund, J.N.; Leveson, S.H. Ileitis in ulcerative colitis: Is it a backwash? Dis. Colon. Rectum. 2005, 48, 2038–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Simpson, P.; Papadakis, K.A. Endoscopic evaluation of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2008, 14, 1287–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Goldstein, N.; Dulai, M. Contemporary morphologic definition of backwash ileitis in ulcerative colitis and features that distinguish it from Crohn disease. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006, 126, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Annunziata, M.L.; Caviglia, R.; Papparella, L.G.; Cicala, M. Upper gastrointestinal involvement of Crohn’s disease: A prospective study on the role of upper endoscopy in the diagnostic work-up. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2012, 57, 1618–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. RFeakins, P.; Nunes, B.; Driessen, A.; Gordon, I.O.; Zidar, N.; Baldin, P.; Christensen, B.; Danese, S.; Herlihy, N.; Iacucci, M.; et al. Definitions of Histological Abnormalities in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An ECCO Position Paper. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2024, 18, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Dejaco, C.; Oesterreicher, C.; Angelberger, S. Diagnosing colitis: A prospective study on essential parameters for reaching a diagnosis. Endoscopy 2003, 35, 1004–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Feakins, R.M. Inflammatory bowel disease biopsies: Updated British Society of Gastroenterology reporting guidelines British Society of Gastroenterology. J. Clin. Pathol. 2013, 66, 1005–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jenkins, D.; Balsitis, M.; Gallivan, S.; Dixon, M.F.; Gilmour, H.M.; Shepherd, N.A.; Theodossi, A.; Williams, G.T. Guidelines for the initial biopsy diagnosis of suspected chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. Br. Soc. Gastroenterol. Initiat. J. Clin. Pathol. 1997, 50, 93–105. [Google Scholar]
  51. Levine, D.S.; Haggitt, R.C. Normal histology of the colon. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1989, 13, 966–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Hunyady, B.; Mezey, E.; Palkovits, M. Gastrointestinal immunology: Cell types in the lamina propria—A morphological review. Acta Physiol. Hung. 2000, 87, 305–328. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Polydorides, A.D.; Banner, B.F.; Hannaway, P.J.; Yantiss, R.K. Evaluation of site-specific and seasonal variation in colonic mucosal eosinophils. Hum. Pathol. 2008, 39, 832–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Surawicz, C.; Belic, L. Rectal biopsy helps to distinguish acute self-limited colitis from idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1984, 86, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Stange, E.F.; Travis, S.P.L.; Vermeire, S.; Beglinger, C.; Kupcinkas, L.; Geboes, K.; Barakauskiene, A.; Villanacci, V.; Von Herbay, A.; Warren, B.F.; et al. European evidence based consensus on the diagnosis and management of Crohn’s disease: Definitions and diagnosis. Gut 2006, 55 (Suppl. S1), i1–i15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Surawicz, C.; Haggitt, R.C.; Husseman, M.; McFarland, L.V. Mucosal biopsy diagnosis of colitis: Acute self-limited colitis and idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 1994, 107, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Schumacher, G.; Kollberg, B.; Sandstedt, B. A prospective study of first attacks of inflammatory bowel disease and infectious colitis. Histologic course during the first year after presentation. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 1994, 29, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Theodossi, A.; Spiegelhalter, D.J.; Jass, J.; Firth, J.; Dixon, M.; Leader, M.; A Levison, D.; Lindley, R.; Filipe, I.; Price, A. Observer variation and discriminatory value of biopsy features in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 1994, 35, 961–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cross, S.S.; Harrison, R.F. Discriminant histological features in the diagnosis of chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease: Analysis of a large dataset by a novel data visualisation technique. J. Clin. Pathol. 2002, 55, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nostrant, T.T.; Kumar, N.B.; Appelman, H.D. Histopathology differentiates acute self-limited colitis from ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 1987, 92, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kiesslich, R.; Neurath, M.F. Chromoendoscopy and other novel imaging techniques. Gastroenterol. Clin. N. Am. 2006, 35, 605–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hoang, T.T.; Leung, Y.; Rosenfeld, G.; Bressler, B. High-definition chromoendoscopy results in more significant dysplasia detection than white light endoscopy with random biopsies in ulcerative colitis patients: A single-center retrospective study. Medicine 2024, 103, e36836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Neumann, H.; Neurath, M.F.; Mudte, J. New endoscopic approaches in IBD. World J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kodashima, S.; Fujishiro, M. Novel image-enhanced endoscopy with i-scan technology. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 16, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Matsumoto, T.; Kudo, T.; Jo, Y.; Esaki, M.; Yao, T.; Iida, M. Magnifying colonoscopy with narrow band imaging system for the diagnosis of dysplasia in ulcerative colitis: A pilot study. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2007, 66, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Iacucci, M.; Furfaro, F.; Matsumoto, T.; Uraoka, T.; Smith, S.; Ghosh, S.; Kiesslich, R. Advanced endoscopic techniques in the assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: New technology, new era. Gut 2019, 68, 562–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Varadarajulu, S.; Banerjee, S.; Barth, B.A.; Desilets, D.J.; Kaul, V.; Kethu, S.R.; Pedrosa, M.C.; Pfau, P.R.; Tokar, J.L.; Wang, A.; et al. GI endoscopes. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2011, 74, 1–6.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Manfredi, M.A.; Abu Dayyeh, B.K.; Bhat, Y.M.; Chauhan, S.S.; Gottlieb, K.T.; Hwang, J.H.; Komanduri, S.; Konda, V.; Lo, S.K.; Maple, J.T.; et al. Electronic chromoendoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015, 81, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Neumann, H.; Vieth, M.; Günther, C.; Neufurt, C.; Kiesslich, R.; Grauer, M.; Atreya, R.; Neurath, M.F. Virtual chromoendoscopy for prediction of severity and disease extent in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A randomized controlled study. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2013, 19, 1935–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kiesslich, R.; Burg, J.; Vieth, M.; Gnaendiger, J.; Enders, M.; Delaney, P.; Polglase, A.; McLaren, W.; Janell, D.; Thomas, S.; et al. Confocal laser endoscopy for diagnosing intraepithelial neoplasia and colorectal cancer in vivo. Gastroenterology 2004, 127, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Watanabe, O.; Ando, T.; Maeda, O.; Hasegawa, M.; Ishikawa, D.; Ishiguro, K.; Ohmiya, N.; Niwa, Y.; Goto, H. Confocal endomicroscopy in patients with ulcerative colitis. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008, 23 (Suppl. S2), S286–S290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bessho, R.; Kanai, T.; Hosoe, N.; Kobayashi, T.; Takayama, T.; Inoue, N.; Mukai, M.; Ogata, H.; Hibi, T. Correlation between endocytoscopy and conventional histopathology in microstructural features of ulcerative colitis. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 46, 1197–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Neumann, H.; Vieth, M.; Atreya, R.; Grauer, M.; Siebler, J.; Bernatik, T.; Neurath, M.F.; Mudter, J. Assessment of Crohn’s disease activity by confocal laser endomicroscopy. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2012, 18, 2261–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, C.Q.; Xie, X.J.; Yu, T.; Gu, X.M.; Zuo, X.L.; Zhou, C.J.; Huang, W.Q.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.Q. Classification of inflammation activity in ulcerative colitis by confocal laser endomicroscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 105, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hundorfean, G.; Chiriac, M.T.; Mudter, J.; Neurath, M.F. Confocal laser endomicroscopy provides potential differentiation criteria between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2013, 19, E61–E64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Iddan, G.; Meron, G.; Glukhovsky, A.; Swain, P. Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature 2000, 405, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cosnes, J.; Gower-Rousseau, C.; Seksik, P.; Cortot, A. Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011, 140, 1785–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Pennazio, M.; Rondonotti, E.; Despott, E.J.; Dray, X.; Keuchel, M.; Moreels, T.; Sanders, D.S.; Spada, C.; Carretero, C.; CortegosoValdivia, P.; et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2022. Endoscopy 2023, 55, 58–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Eliakim, R.; Fischer, D.; Suissa, A.; Yassin, K.; Katz, D.; Guttman, N.; Migdal, M. Wireless capsule video endoscopy is a superior diagnostic tool in comparison to barium follow-through and computerized tomography in patients with suspected Crohn’s disease. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2003, 15, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Collins, P.D. Video capsule endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. World J. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016, 8, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Petruzziello, C.; Calabrese, E.; Onali, S.; Zuzzi, S.; Condino, G.; Ascolani, M.; Zorzi, F.; Pallone, F.; Biancone, L. Small bowel capsule endoscopy vs conventional techniques in patients with symptoms highly compatible with Crohn’s disease. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2011, 5, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Petruzziello, C.; Onali, S.; Calabrese, E.; Zorzi, F.; Ascolani, M.; Condino, G.; Lolli, E.; Naccarato, P.; Pallone, F.; Biancone, L. Wireless capsule endoscopy and proximal small bowel lesions in Crohn’s disease. World J. Gastroenterol. 2010, 16, 3299–3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Cheifetz, A.S.; Kornbluth, A.A.; Legnani, P.; Schmelkin, I.; Brown, A.; Lichtiger, S.; Lewis, B.S. The risk of retention of the capsule endoscope in patients with known or suspected Crohn’s disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 2218–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Bourreille, A.; Ignjatovic, A.; Aabakken, L.; Loftus EVJr Eliakim, R.; Pennazio, M.; Bouhnik, Y.; Seidman, E.; Keuchel, M.; Albert, J.G.; Ardizzone, S.; et al. Role of small-bowel endoscopy in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease: An international OMED-ECCO consensus. World Organisation of Digestive Endoscopy (OMED) and the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Endoscopy 2009, 41, 618–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Chauhan, S.S.; Manfredi, M.A.; Abu Dayyeh, B.K.; Brintha, K.E.; Fujii-Lau, L.L.; Sri, K.; Vani, K.; John, T.M.; Faris, M.M.; Rahul, P.; et al. Enteroscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015, 82, 975–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Heine, G.D.; Hadithi, M.; Groenen, M.J.; Kuipers, E.J.; Jacobs, M.A.; Mulder, C.J. Double-balloon enteroscopy: Indications, diagnostic yield, and complications in a series of 275 patients with suspected small-bowel disease. Endoscopy 2006, 38, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Huang, Z.; Liu, X.; Yang, F.; Wang, G.; Ge, N.; Wang, S.; Guo, J.; Sun, S. Diagnostic efficacy of double-balloon enteroscopy inpatients with suspected isolated small bowel Crohn’s disease. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. 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 2022, 26, 523–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. JPanes, Y.; Bouhnik, W.; Reinisch, J.; Stoker, S.A.; Taylor, D.C.; Baumgart, S.; Danese, S.; Halligan, B.; Marincek, C.; Matos, L.; et al. Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: Joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2013, 7, 556–585. [Google Scholar]
  90. Bruining, D.H.; Zimmermann, E.M.; Loftus, E.V., Jr.; Sandborn, W.J.; Sauer, C.G.; Strong, S.A. Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn’s Disease-Focused Panel. Consensus recommendations for evaluation, interpretation, and utilization of computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography in patients with small bowel Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 1172–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Fletcher, J.G.; Fidler, J.L.; Bruining, D.H.; Hu-prich, J.E. New concepts in intestinal imaging for inflammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology 2011, 140, 1795–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kunihiro, K.; Hata, J.; Haruma, K.; Manabe, N.; Tanaka, S.; Chayama, K. Sonographic detection of longitudinal ulcers in Crohn disease. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2004, 39, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Buisson, A.; Joubert, A.; Montoriol, P.; Ines, D.D.; Hordonneau, C.; Pereira, B.; Garcier, J.; Bommelaer, G.; Petitcolin, V. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detecting and assessing ileal inflammation in Crohn’s disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2013, 37, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Sasaki, T.; Kunisaki, R.; Kinoshita, H.; Kimura, H.; Kodera, T.; Nozawa, A.; Hanzawa, A.; Shibata, N.; Yonezawa, H.; Miyajima, E.; et al. Doppler ultrasound findings correlate with tissue vascularity and inflammation in surgical pathology specimens from patients with small intestinal Crohn’s disease. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. 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]
  96. Na, J.E.; Kim, H.S.; Hong, S.N.; Song, K.D.; Kim, J.E.; Kim, E.R.; Kim, Y.H.; Chang, D.K. Comparison of an Endoscopic Scoring System and the Simplified Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity in Patients with Small Bowel Crohn’s Disease. Gut Liver 2024, 18, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Maira, H.; Stuart, A.T. Small bowel imaging in inflammatory bowel disease: Updates for 2023. Expert. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 17, 1117–1134. [Google Scholar]
  98. Barchi, A.; D’Amico, F.; Zilli, A.; Furfaro, F.; Parigi, T.L.; Fiorino, G.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S.; Dal Buono, A.; Allocca, M. Recent advances in the use of ultrasound in Crohn’s disease. Expert. Rev. Med. Devices 2023, 20, 1119–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Allocca, M.; Fiorino, G.; Bonifacio, C.; Furfaro, F.; Gilardi, D.; Argollo, M.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Danese, S. Comparative accuracy of bowel ultrasound versus Magnetic resonance enterography in combination with colonoscopy in assessing Crohn’s disease and guiding clinical decision-making. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2018, 12, 1280–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ordás, I.; Rimola, J.; Alfaro, I.; Rodríguez, S.; Castro-Poceiro, J.; Ramírez-Morros, A.; Gallego, M.; Giner, À.; Barastegui, R.; Fernández-Clotet, A.; et al. Development and validation of a simplified magnetic resonance index of activity for Crohn’s disease. Gastroenterology 2019, 157, 432–439.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Alyami, A.S.; Madkhali, Y.; Majrashi, N.A.; Alwadani, B.; Elbashir, M.; Ali, S.; Ageeli, W.; El-Bahkiry, H.S.; Althobity, A.A.; Refaee, T. The role of molecular imaging in detecting fibrosis in Crohn’s disease. Ann. Med. 2024, 56, 2313676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Coelho, R.; Ribeiro, H.; Maconi, G. Bowel Thickening in Crohn’s Disease: Fibrosis or Inflammation? Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging Tools. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2017, 23, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Catalano, O.A.; Gee, M.S.; Nicolai, E.; Selvaggi, F.; Pellino, G.; Cuocolo, A.; Luongo, A.; Catalano, M.; Rosen, B.R.; Gervais, D. Evaluation of quantitative PET/MR enterography biomarkers for discrimination of inflammatory strictures from fibrotic strictures in Crohn disease. Radiology 2015, 278, 792–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Foti, P.V.; Travali, M.; Farina, R.; Palmucci, S.; Coronella, M.; Spatola, C.; Puzzo, L.; Garro, R.; Inserra, G.; Riguccio, G.; et al. Can conventional and diffusion-weighted mr enterography biomarkers differentiate inflammatory from fibrotic strictures in crohn’s disease? Medicina 2021, 5, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Fraquelli, M.; Colli, A.; Casazza, G.; Paggi, S.; Colucci, A.; Massironi, S.; Duca, P.; Conte, D. Role of US in detection of Crohn disease: Meta-analysis. Radiology 2005, 236, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Blackwell, J.; Saxena, S.; Jayasooriya, N.; Bottle, A.; Petersen, I.; Hotopf, M.; Alexakis, C.; Pollok, R.C.J. Prevalence and Duration of Gastrointestinal Symptoms before Diagnosis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Predictors of Timely Specialist Review: A Population-Based Study. POP-IBD study group. Crohn’s Colitis. 2020, 15, jjaa146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Torres, J.; Petralia, F.; Sato, T.; Wang, P.; Telesco, S.E.; Choung, R.S.; Strauss, R.; Li, X.J.; Laird, R.M.; Gutierrez, R.L.; et al. Serum Biomarkers Identify Patients Who Will Develop Inflammatory Bowel Diseases up to 5 Years Before Diagnosis. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Vestergaard, M.V.; Allin, K.H.; Poulsen, G.J.; Lee, J.C.; Jess, T. Characterizing the pre-clinical phase of inflammatory bowel disease. Cell Rep. Med. 2023, 4, 101263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Umar, N.; Wambua, S.; Harvey, P.; Haroon, S.; Adderley, N.J.; Trudgill, N. P488 Development and validation of a risk prediction tool for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnosis in patients presenting in primary care with abdominal symptoms, a UK based study. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2024, 18 (Suppl. S1), i976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Danese, S.; Fiorino, G.; Mary, J.-Y.; Lakatos, P.L.; D’haens, G.; Moja, L.; D’hoore, A.; Panes, J.; Reinisch, W.; Sandborn, W.J.; et al. Development of red flags index for early referral of adults with symptoms and signs suggestive of Crohn’s disease: An IOIBD initiative. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2015, 9, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fiorino, G.; Bonovas, S.; Gilardi, D.; Di Sabatino, A.; Allocca, M.; Furfaro, F.; Roda, G.; Lenti, M.V.; Aronico, N.; Mengoli, C.; et al. Validation of the red flags index for early diagnosis of Crohn’s disease: A prospective observational IG-IBD study among general practitioners. J. Crohn’s Colitis 2020, 14, 1777–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Novacek, G.; Austrian IBD Study Group (ATISG); Gröchenig, H.P.; Haas, T.; Wenzl, H.; Steiner, P.; Koch, R.; Feichtenschlager, T.; Eckhardt, G.; Mayer, A.; et al. Diagnostic delay in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Austria. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2019, 131, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Schoepfer, A.M.; Dehlavi, M.A.; Fournier, N.; Safroneeva, E.; Straumann, A.; Pittet, V.; Peyrin-Biroulet, L.; Michetti, P.; Rogler, G.; Vavricka, S.R.; et al. Diagnostic delay in Crohn’s disease is associated with a complicated disease course and increased operation rate. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 108, 1744–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Dilillo, D.; Zuccotti, G.V.; Galli, E.; Meneghin, F.; Dell’Era, A.; Penagini, F.; Colella, G.; Lewindon, P.; Carmagnola, S.; Farina, E.; et al. Noninvasive testing in the management of children with suspected inflammatory bowel disease. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 54, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. 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]
Diagnostics 14 01530 g001
Figure 1. Diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected IBD. Inflammatory bowel disease: IBD, Crohn’s disease: CD, video capsule endoscopy: VCE, intestinal ultrasound: IUS, magnetic resonance imaging: MRE, CTE: computed tomography enterography.
Figure 1. Diagnostic algorithm for patients with suspected IBD. Inflammatory bowel disease: IBD, Crohn’s disease: CD, video capsule endoscopy: VCE, intestinal ultrasound: IUS, magnetic resonance imaging: MRE, CTE: computed tomography enterography.
Diagnostics 14 01530 g001
Table 1. The combination of clinical, laboratory, and diagnostic tools helps the clinician in the diagnosis of IBD. Inflammatory bowel disease: IBD, Crohn’s disease: CD, device-assisted enteroscopy: DAE, video capsule endoscopy: VCE, intestinal ultrasound: IUS, confocal laser endomicroscopy: CLE, magnetic resonance enterography: MRE, CTE: computed tomography enterography.
Table 1. The combination of clinical, laboratory, and diagnostic tools helps the clinician in the diagnosis of IBD. Inflammatory bowel disease: IBD, Crohn’s disease: CD, device-assisted enteroscopy: DAE, video capsule endoscopy: VCE, intestinal ultrasound: IUS, confocal laser endomicroscopy: CLE, magnetic resonance enterography: MRE, CTE: computed tomography enterography.
Tools for Diagnosis of IBD
Clinical evaluationEvaluate presence of gastrointestinal symptomsa and Extra intestinal symptoms; family history of IBD; autoimmune disease
Laboratory testsStool examinations for enteric infections; fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin test; laboratory tests such as C-reactive protein, blood cell count, iron, and vitamins
EndoscopyIleocolonscopy with biopsies: in all patients with suspected IBD;
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsies: if upper symptoms;
VCE: if suspected CD and negative findings on ileocolonoscopy;
DAE: to take biopsies or when stenosis is expected;
CLE: for inflammation assessment
Imaging techniquesIUS, MRE, or CTE to evaluate the extent of small bowel involvement in CD, disease activity, and complications; IUS and CTE to evaluate the extent of disease and complications in ulcerative colitis
Table 2. The partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis. This score combines two patient-reported outcomes (stool frequency and rectal bleeding) and the physician’s global assessment and defines the activity disease. The Mayo score ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Table 2. The partial Mayo score for ulcerative colitis. This score combines two patient-reported outcomes (stool frequency and rectal bleeding) and the physician’s global assessment and defines the activity disease. The Mayo score ranges from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Partial Mayo Score [Index]0123
Stool frequencyNormal1–2/day > normal3–4/day > normal5/day > normal
Rectal bleedingNoneStreaksObviousMostly blood
Physician’s global assessmentNormalMildModerateSevere
Table 3. Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI) for assessing Crohn’s disease activity. The HBI is a simple scoring system for assessing the degree of illness in patients with Crohn’s disease. The index considers five clinical parameters, and for each parameter, a specific score is assigned. The HBI evaluates general well-being and abdominal pain the day before; the number of liquid or soft stools (previous day); the presence of abdominal mass; and the presence of complications.
Table 3. Harvey–Bradshaw Index (HBI) for assessing Crohn’s disease activity. The HBI is a simple scoring system for assessing the degree of illness in patients with Crohn’s disease. The index considers five clinical parameters, and for each parameter, a specific score is assigned. The HBI evaluates general well-being and abdominal pain the day before; the number of liquid or soft stools (previous day); the presence of abdominal mass; and the presence of complications.
VariableVariable Description
General well-being0 = very well; 1 = slightly below average;
2 = poor; 3 = very poor;
4 = terrible
Abdominal pain0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = severe
Number of liquid stools0 = 0–1 stools; 1 = 2–3 stools; 2 = 4–5 stools; 3 = 6–7 stools; 4 = 8–9 stools; 5 = 10+ stools
Abdominal mass0 = none; 1 = dubious; 2 = definite; 3 = tender
ComplicationsNone, uveitis, arthalgia, erythema nodosum, aphthous gangrenosum, anal fissure, new fistula, abscess; one point each
The total HBI score is calculated by summing the individual scores for each parameter. Remission < 5; mild disease 5–7; moderate disease 8–16; severe disease >16.
Table 4. Simple endoscopic scoring system for CD activity (SES-CD). The SES-CD is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system. It considers the following 4 endoscopic variables: the presence and the size of ulcers, the proportion of the surface covered by ulcers, the proportion of the surface with any other lesions, and stenosis. Each variable was scored from 0 to 3 in each segment (the ileum; the right colon segment; the transverse colon; the left colon segment and the rectum segment). The score is correlated to clinical and biochemical parameters such as serum C-reactive protein level.
Table 4. Simple endoscopic scoring system for CD activity (SES-CD). The SES-CD is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system. It considers the following 4 endoscopic variables: the presence and the size of ulcers, the proportion of the surface covered by ulcers, the proportion of the surface with any other lesions, and stenosis. Each variable was scored from 0 to 3 in each segment (the ileum; the right colon segment; the transverse colon; the left colon segment and the rectum segment). The score is correlated to clinical and biochemical parameters such as serum C-reactive protein level.
Variable0123
Size of ulcersNoneAfthous ulcers (Diameter 0.1 to 0.5 cm)Large ulcers
(Diameter 0.5 to 2 cm)		Very large ulcers
(Diameter > 2 cm)
Ulcerated surfaceNone<10%10–30%>30%
Affected surfaceUnaffected segment<50%50–75%>75%
Presence of narrowingsNoneSingle, can be passedMultiple, can be passedCannot be passed
Table 5. Mayo endoscopic score for UC disease activity. It consists of a 4-point scale from inactive (score 0) to severely active disease (score 3) based on endoscopic findings, such as erythema, vascular pattern, friability, bleeding, erosions, and ulcerations, evaluated in the most inflamed colonic area.
Table 5. Mayo endoscopic score for UC disease activity. It consists of a 4-point scale from inactive (score 0) to severely active disease (score 3) based on endoscopic findings, such as erythema, vascular pattern, friability, bleeding, erosions, and ulcerations, evaluated in the most inflamed colonic area.
Mayo Endoscopic ScoreEndoscopic Features
0None
1Erythema, decreased vascular pattern, mild friability
2Marked erythema, absent vascular pattern, friability, erosions
3Spontaneous bleeding, ulcerations
Table 6. Histological characteristics of ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and infectious colitis.
Table 6. Histological characteristics of ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and infectious colitis.
Typical Histological Features Ulceratis ColitisCrohn’s DiseaseInfectious Colitis
Lymphoid aggregatesFrequent in mucosaCommon, transmuralPresent in mucosa
GranulomasAbsentCommon, transmuralPossible in tubercolosis enteritis
Localization of inflammationLimited to the mucosaTransmuralLimited to the mucosa
Active inflammationDiffuse Focal with skip lesionsDiffuse
Cryptitis, crypt abscessesDiffuse continuousFocal discontinuousFrequent, diffuse
Crypt architectural distortionDiffuseFocal, frequentUsually absent
AtrophyPresentUncommon, mildRare
Pyloric metaplasiaRarePresentRare except in tuberculosis enteritis
Basal plasmacytosisPresentPresentUsually absent
Table 7. Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the main radiological techniques.
Table 7. Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the main radiological techniques.
Radiological Imaging Techniques
in Inflammatory Bowel Disease		Advantages of Radiological
Imaging Techniques in IBD		Disadvantages of Radiological Imaging Techniques in IBD
Magnetic resonance enterographyNon-invasive nature
Assessment of disease extent and severity
Evaluation of disease complications
Sensitivity > 97%		Radiation exposure
Contrast agent administration
High cost
Contraindicated in patients with certain medical devices or claustrophobia
Diagnostic accuracy for stenosis is based on the use of luminal contrast
Intestinal ultrasoundNon-invasive nature
Assessment of disease extent and severity
Cost-effective
No oral preparation
Easily reproducible
Evaluation of disease complications
Sensitivity > 92%		Operator dependence
Poor image quality in patients with excess abdominal weight
Computed tomography enterographyNon-invasive nature
Assessment of disease extent and severity
Evaluation of disease complications
Sensitivity > 84%		Radiation exposure
Contrast agent administration
High cost
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cicerone, C.; D’Amico, F.; Allocca, M.; Zilli, A.; Parigi, T.L.; Danese, S.; Furfaro, F. A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Integration of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Imaging Modalities. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141530

AMA Style

Cicerone C, D’Amico F, Allocca M, Zilli A, Parigi TL, Danese S, Furfaro F. A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Integration of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Imaging Modalities. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(14):1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141530

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cicerone, Clelia, Ferdinando D’Amico, Mariangela Allocca, Alessandra Zilli, Tommaso Lorenzo Parigi, Silvio Danese, and Federica Furfaro. 2024. "A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Integration of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Imaging Modalities" Diagnostics 14, no. 14: 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141530

APA Style

Cicerone, C., D’Amico, F., Allocca, M., Zilli, A., Parigi, T. L., Danese, S., & Furfaro, F. (2024). A Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Approach to Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Integration of Clinical, Endoscopic, and Imaging Modalities. Diagnostics, 14(14), 1530. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14141530

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