Advertisement

Rapid 3D navigator-triggered MR cholangiopancreatography with SPACE sequence at 3T: only one-third acquisition time of conventional 3D SPACE navigator-triggered MRCP

  • Bin Sun
  • Zhiyong ChenEmail author
  • Qing Duan
  • Yunjing Xue
  • Enshuang Zheng
  • Yingying He
  • Lin Lin
  • Guijin Li
  • Zhongshuai Zhang
Hepatobiliary
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the proposed rapid NT-MRCP protocol and the conventional NT-MRCP protocol with respect to image quality as well as the acquisition time.

Materials and methods

Between January 2019 and May 2019, a total number of 67 consecutive patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary diseases were included in this prospective study and underwent 3D rapid MRCP and 3D conventional MRCP sequences. Both acquisition protocols were set from the same navigator-triggered 3D SPACE sequence. The acquisition time was recorded. Two blinded radiologists performed qualitative analyses with respect to overall image quality, motion artifacts, and CBD visibility using a four-point scale. Quantitative evaluation included the contrast, signal-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-noise ratio (CNR) between the common bile duct (CBD) and periductal tissues. A paired t test was used to assess differences in the qualitative and quantitative evaluations between the two acquisition methods.

Results

All MRCP studies were completed successfully. The mean acquisition time of rapid NT-MRCP (96.64 ± 30.55 s) was significantly lower than that of the conventional NT–MRCP (271.42 ± 61.63 s; p < 0.001).The contrast ratio, SNR, and CNR of the CBD were significantly higher for conventional NT-MRCP than with rapid NT-MRCP images (0.95 ± 0.02 vs. 0.93 ± 0.03, p < 0.001; 10.36 ± 4.63 vs. 8.90 ± 4.71, p = 0.011; 14.01 ± 6.02 vs. 12.22 ± 6.36, p = 0.020, respectively). The rapid MRCP depicted the overall image quality, artifacts, CBD visibility, right and left hepatic duct, segment 2 branch, main pancreatic duct, and cystic duct significantly better compared with conventional MRCP (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two methods regarding visibility of anterior, posterior, and segment 3 branches (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

In conclusion, the proposed rapid MRCP protocol yielded significantly higher overall image quality and better visualization of the pancreaticobiliary tree with a significantly reduced imaging time without deterioration of image quality compared with the conventional MRCP at 3T.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Magnetic resonance imaging Common bile duct 

Abbreviations

MRCP

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

CBD

Common bile duct

SPACE

Sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolutions

CNR

Contrast-to-noise ratio

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

3D

Three-dimensional

NT

Navigator-triggered

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the work submitted.

References

  1. 1.
    Mazziotti S, Costa C, Ascenti G, GaetaM, Pandolfo A, Blandino A. MR cholangiopancreatography diagnosis of juxtapapillary duodenal diverticulum simulating a cystic lesion of the pancreas: usefulness of an oral negative contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:432–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valls C, Alba E, Cruz M et al. Biliary complications after liver transplantation: diagnosis with MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:812–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aubé C1, Delorme B, Yzet T, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: a prospective, comparative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol.2005; 184:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakaura T, Kidoh M, Maruyama N, et al. Usefulness of the SPACE pulse sequence at 1.5 T MR cholangiography: comparison of image quality and image acquisition time with conventional 3D-TSE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging.2013;38:1014–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sodickson A, Mortele KJ, Barish MA, et al. Three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo MRCP: comparison with two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology. 2006;238:549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi JY, Kim MJ, Lee JM, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison of two- and three-dimensional sequences for assessment of malignant biliary obstruction. Eur Radiol 2008;18:78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wielopolski PA, Gaa J, Wielopolski DR, Oudkerk M. Breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography with three-dimensional, segmented, echo-planar imaging and volume rendering. Radiology 1999;210:247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asbach P, Dewey M, Klessen C, et al. Respiratory-triggered MRCP applying parallel acquisition techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24:1095–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masui T, Katayama M, Kobayashi S, et al. 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. Radiat Med 2006;24:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang J, Israel GM, Hecht EM, Krinsky GA, Babb JS, Lee VS. Isotropic 3D T2-weighted MR cholangiopancreatography with parallel imaging: feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:1564–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nandalur KR, Hussain HK, Weadock WJ, et al. Possible biliary disease: diagnostic performance of high-spatial-resolution isotropic 3D T2-weighted MRCP. Radiology 2008;249:883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riordan RD, Khonsari M, Jeffries J, et al. Pineapple juice as a negative oral contrast agent in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: a preliminary evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2004;77:991–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morikatsu Yoshida, Takeshi Nakaura, Taihei Inoue, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with GRASE sequence at 3.0T: does it improve image quality and acquisition time as compared with 3D TSE. European Radiology.2018; 28: 2436–2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yokoyama K, Nakaura T, Iyama Y et al.Usefulness of 3D hybrid profile order technique with 3T magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison of image quality and acquisition time. J MagnReson Imaging2016; 44:1346–1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS, et al. High-spatial-resolution three-dimensional MRcholangiography using a high-sampling-efficiency technique (SPACE) at 3 T: Comparison with the conventional constant flip angle sequence in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:685–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z, et al. Compressed-sensing accelerated 3-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: application in suspected pancreatic diseases. Invest Radiol 2018;53:150–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seo N, Park MS, Han K, et al. Feasibility of 3D navigator-triggered magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with combined parallel imaging and compressed sensing reconstruction at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(5):1289-1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yoon JH, Lee SM, Kang HJ, et al. Clinical feasibility of 3-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using compressed sensing: comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance. Invest Radiol. 2017;52:612–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chandarana H, Doshi AM, Shanbhogue A, et al. Three-dimensional MR cholangiopancreatography in a breath hold with sparsity-based reconstruction of highly undersampled data. Radiology. 2016;280:585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glockner JF, Saranathan M, Bayram E, et al. Breath-held MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using a 3D Dixon fat-water separated balanced steady state free precession sequence. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31:1263–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUnion Hospital, Fujian Medical UniversityFuzhouChina
  2. 2.MR Application, Siemens Healthineers LtdGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.Diagnostic Imaging, Siemens HealthcareShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations