Advertisement

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
Hepatobiliary

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusion

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

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography Bile duct Pancreatic duct 

Abbreviations

3D

Three-dimensional

BH C-SENSE

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

CBD

Common bile duct

CI

Confidence interval

CS

Compressed sensing

ICC

Interclass correlation coefficient

LHD

Left intrahepatic bile duct

MRCP

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

NT C-SENSE

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

NT SENSE

Navigator-triggered MRCP using sensitivity encoding

RC

Relative duct-to-periductal contrast ratio

RHD

Right intrahepatic bile duct

Notes

Supplementary material

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

References

  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 https://philipsproductcontent.blob.core.windows.net/assets/20180109/619119731f2a42c4acd4a863008a46c7.pdf. 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