Navigator-triggered and breath-hold 3D MRCP using compressed sensing: image quality and method selection factor assessment

  • Daisuke MorimotoEmail author
  • Tomoko Hyodo
  • Ken Kamata
  • Tomoya Kadoba
  • Makoto Itoh
  • Hiroyuki Fukushima
  • Yasutaka Chiba
  • Mamoru Takenaka
  • Tomohiro Mochizuki
  • Yu Ueda
  • Keizou Miyagoshi
  • Masatoshi Kudo
  • Kazunari Ishii



To examine whether MRCP using a combination of compressed sensing and sensitivity encoding with navigator-triggered and breath-hold techniques (NT C-SENSE and BH C-SENSE, respectively) have comparable image quality to that of navigator-triggered MRCP using only sensitivity encoding (NT SENSE) at 1.5-T.


Fifty-one participants were enrolled in this prospective study between July and October 2018 and underwent the three 3D MRCP sequences each. The acquisition time and relative duct-to-periductal contrast ratios (RC values) of each bile duct segment were obtained. Visualization of the bile and main pancreatic ducts, background suppression, artifacts, and overall image quality were scored on 5-point scales. Mean and median differences in RC values and qualitative scores of NT C-SENSE and BH C-SENSE relative to NT SENSE were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).


Acquisition time of NT SENSE, NT C-SENSE, and BH C-SENSE were 348, 143 (mean for both), and 18 s (for all participants), respectively. The RC value of each bile duct segment was inferior, but the lower limits of the 95% CIs of the mean differences were ≥ − 0.10, for both NT C-SENSE and BH C-SENSE. The visualization score of the intrahepatic duct in BH C-SENSE was inferior to that in NT SENSE (lower 95% CI limit, − 1.5). In both NT C-SENSE and BH C-SENSE, the 95% CIs of the median differences in the other qualitative scores were from − 1.0 to 0.0.


NT C-SENSE and BH C-SENSE have comparable image quality to NT SENSE at 1.5-T.


Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Bile duct Pancreatic duct 





Breath-hold MRCP using a combination of compressed sensing and sensitivity encoding


Common bile duct


Confidence interval


Compressed sensing


Interclass correlation coefficient


Left intrahepatic bile duct


Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography


Navigator-triggered MRCP using a combination of compressed sensing and sensitivity encoding


Navigator-triggered MRCP using sensitivity encoding


Relative duct-to-periductal contrast ratio


Right intrahepatic bile duct


Supplementary material

261_2020_2403_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Katabathina VS, Dasyam AK, Dasyam N, Hosseinzadeh K (2014) Adult bile duct strictures: role of MR imaging and MR cholangiopancreatography in characterization. Radiographics 34:565-586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT (1999) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med 341:258-264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kinner S, Dechene A, Ladd SC et al (2010) Comparison of different MRCP techniques for the depiction of biliary complications after liver transplantation. Eur Radiol 20:1749-1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asbach P, Klessen C, Kroencke TJ et al (2005) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a free-breathing T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence with navigator-triggered prospective acquisition correction. Magn Reson Imaging 23:939-945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Itatani R, Namimoto T, Takaoka H et al (2015) Clinical impact of 3-dimensional balanced turbo-field-echo magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 3 T: prospective intraindividual comparison with 3-dimensional turbo-spin-echo magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:19-24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim JH, Hong SS, Eun HW, Han JK, Choi BI (2012) Clinical usefulness of free-breathing navigator-triggered 3D MRCP in non-cooperative patients: comparison with conventional breath-hold 2D MRCP. Eur J Radiol 81:e513-518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshida M, Nakaura T, Inoue T et al (2018) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with GRASE sequence at 3.0T: does it improve image quality and acquisition time as compared with 3D TSE? Eur Radiol 28:2436-2443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glockner JF, Saranathan M, Bayram E, Lee CU (2013) Breath-held MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) using a 3D Dixon fat-water separated balanced steady state free precession sequence. Magn Reson Imaging 31:1263-1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sodickson A, Mortele KJ, Barish MA, Zou KH, Thibodeau S, Tempany CM (2006) Three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo MRCP: comparison with two-dimensional single-shot fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 238:549-559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandarana H, Doshi AM, Shanbhogue A et al (2016) Three-dimensional MR Cholangiopancreatography in a Breath Hold with Sparsity-based Reconstruction of Highly Undersampled Data. Radiology 280:585-594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoon JH, Lee SM, Kang HJ et al (2017) Clinical Feasibility of 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance. Invest Radiol 52:612-619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu L, Xue H, Sun Z et al (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 48:1389–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z et al (2018) Compressed-Sensing Accelerated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography: Application in Suspected Pancreatic Diseases. Invest Radiol 53:150-157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isoda H, Kataoka M, Maetani Y et al (2007) MRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:1000-1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 58:1182-1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geerts-Ossevoort L, Weerdt Ed, Duijndam A et al (2018) Compressed SENSE. Speed done right. Every time. Philips® healthcare, Netherlands. Available via Accessed October 10 2018
  17. 17.
    Seo N, Park MS, Han K et al (2017) Feasibility of 3D navigator-triggered magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with combined parallel imaging and compressed sensing reconstruction at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:1289-1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klessen C, Asbach P, Kroencke TJ et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the upper abdomen using a free-breathing T2-weighted turbo spin echo sequence with navigator triggered prospective acquisition correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 21:576-582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175-191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213-220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nagata S, Goshima S, Noda Y et al (2019) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using optimized integrated combination with parallel imaging and compressed sensing technique. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44:1766-1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schreiber-Zinaman J, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Frequency and reasons for extra sequences in clinical abdominal MRI examinations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:306-311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taron J, Weiss J, Notohamiprodjo M et al (2018) Acceleration of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing at 1.5 and 3 T: A Clinical Feasibility Study. Invest Radiol 53:681-688CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology CenterKindai University HospitalOsaka-SayamaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineKindai UniversityOsaka-SayamaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of MedicineKindai UniversityOsaka-SayamaJapan
  4. 4.Clinical Research CenterKindai University HospitalOsaka-SayamaJapan
  5. 5.Philips JapanTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations