Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using optimized integrated combination with parallel imaging and compressed sensing technique

  • Shoma Nagata
  • Satoshi GoshimaEmail author
  • Yoshifumi Noda
  • Nobuyuki Kawai
  • Kimihiro Kajita
  • Hiroshi Kawada
  • Yukichi Tanahashi
  • Masayuki Matsuo



To assess the combined parallel imaging (PI) and optimized integrated compressed sensing technique (prototype Compressed SENSE) for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) compared with conventional MRCP.


This prospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board, and all patients provided written informed consent. A total of 56 consecutive patients (27 men and 29 women; mean age 67.2 years) underwent breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) MRCP with PI alone (BH-MRCP; acquisition time, 23 s), respiratory-triggered 3D MRCP with PI alone (RT-MRCP; 201 s) and respiratory-triggered 3D MRCP with Compressed SENSE (RT-MRCPcs; 45 s). Relative duct-to-periductal contrast ratios (RCs) of the pancreaticobiliary ducts were calculated for quantitative image analyses. Two radiologists graded the visibility of the pancreaticobiliary ducts, pancreatic cystic lesion, motion artifact, and overall image quality using a five-point rating scale for qualitative image analyses. Theses qualitative and quantitative measurements were then compared among the three sequences.


RCs of the common bile duct, right hepatic duct (RHD), left hepatic duct (LHD), and main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head, body, and tail segments, were significantly higher RT-MRCP, followed by RT-MRCPcs and BH-MRCP (P < 0.001). The visibility of the peripheral RHD and LHD was slightly better in RT-MRCP than in RT-MRCPcs and BH-MRCP (P < 0.001). The visibility of other pancreaticobiliary ducts, pancreatic cystic lesion, motion artifact, and overall image quality were almost comparable among three sequences.


The acquisition time was markedly reduced in RT-MRCPcs compared with conventional RT-MRCP while there were significant differences in both quantitative and qualitative analyses, the differences were small enough that the reduced acquisition time makes up for it.


Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Compressed sensing Respiratory triggered Pancreaticobiliary ducts Diagnostic imaging 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author disclosure of potential conflict of interest. No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The requirement for informed consent was waived by our Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    Lee JH, Lee SS, Kim JY, Kim IS, Byun JH, Park SH, Lee MG (2014) Parallel imaging improves the image quality and duct visibility of breathhold two-dimensional thick-slab MR cholangiopancreatography. J Magn Reson Imaging 39 (2):269-275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sodickson A, Mortele KJ, Barish MA, Zou KH, Thibodeau S, Tempany CMC (2006) Three-dimensional Fast-Recovery Fast Spin-Echo MRCP: Comparison with Two-dimensional Single-Shot Fast Spin-Echo Techniques. Radiology 238 (2):549-559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seo N, Park MS, Han K, Kim D, King KF, Choi JY, Kim H, Kim HJ, Lee M, Bae H, Kim MJ (2017) Feasibility of 3D navigator-triggered magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with combined parallel imaging and compressed sensing reconstruction at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 46 (5):1289-1297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magnetic resonance in medicine 58 (6):1182-1195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon JH, Lee SM, Kang HJ, Weiland E, Raithel E, Son Y, Kiefer B, Lee JM (2017) Clinical Feasibility of 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance. Investigative radiology 52 (10):612-619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z, Jin Z, Weiland E, Raithel E, Qian T, Xue H (2018) Compressed-Sensing Accelerated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography: Application in Suspected Pancreatic Diseases. Investigative radiology 53 (3):150-157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawai N, Goshima S, Noda Y, Kajita K, Kawada H, Tanahashi Y, Nagata S, Matsuo M (2018) Gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using optimized integrated combination of compressed sensing and parallel imaging technique. Magn Reson Imaging 57:111-117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kellman P, McVeigh ER (2005) Image reconstruction in SNR units: a general method for SNR measurement. Magnetic resonance in medicine 54 (6):1439-1447. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robson PM, Grant AK, Madhuranthakam AJ, Lattanzi R, Sodickson DK, McKenzie CA (2008) Comprehensive quantification of signal-to-noise ratio and g-factor for image-based and k-space-based parallel imaging reconstructions. Magnetic resonance in medicine 60 (4):895-907. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26 (2):375-385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Masui T, Katayama M, Kobayashi S, Nozaki A, Sugimura M, Ikeda M, Sakahara H (2006) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: comparison of respiratory-triggered three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo with parallel imaging technique and breath-hold half-Fourier two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo technique. Radiation medicine 24 (3):202-209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang J, Israel GM, Hecht EM, Krinsky GA, Babb JS, Lee VS (2006) Isotropic 3D T2-weighted MR cholangiopancreatography with parallel imaging: feasibility study. AJR American journal of roentgenology 187 (6):1564-1570. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandarana H, Doshi AM, Shanbhogue A, Babb JS, Bruno MT, Zhao T, Raithel E, Zenge MO, Li G, Otazo R (2016) Three-dimensional MR Cholangiopancreatography in a Breath Hold with Sparsity-based Reconstruction of Highly Undersampled Data. Radiology 280 (2):585-594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhu L, Xue H, Sun Z, Qian T, Weiland E, Kuehn B, Asbach P, Hamm B, Jin Z (2018) Modified breath-hold compressed-sensing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography with a small field-of-view and high resolution acquisition: Clinical feasibility in biliary and pancreatic disorders. J Magn Reson Imaging.
  15. 15.
    Kwon H, Reid S, Kim D, Lee S, Cho J, Oh J (2018) Diagnosing common bile duct obstruction: comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance of three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with and without compressed sensing. Abdominal radiology (New York).
  16. 16.
    Worters PW, Sung K, Stevens KJ, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA (2013) Compressed-sensing multispectral imaging of the postoperative spine. J Magn Reson Imaging 37 (1):243-248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shoma Nagata
    • 1
  • Satoshi Goshima
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yoshifumi Noda
    • 1
  • Nobuyuki Kawai
    • 1
  • Kimihiro Kajita
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Kawada
    • 1
  • Yukichi Tanahashi
    • 1
  • Masayuki Matsuo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyGifu UniversityGifuJapan

Personalised recommendations