Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of quantitative 3D magnetic resonance cholangiography measurements obtained using three different image acquisition methods

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare quantitative biliary measurements obtained with three different magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) acquisition methods.

Methods

This retrospective study was IRB-approved. Patients with combinations of clinically indicated 3D FSE MRCP with sensitivity encoding (SENSE), 3D FSE SENSE MRCP with compressed sensing (CS-FSE; acceleration factor 8), and 3D gradient and spin-echo (GRASE) MRCP, acquired between October 2018 and March 2020, were included. The MRCP + Tuning Threshold algorithm (Perspectum Ltd., Oxford, UK) was used to segment 3D biliary models from MRCP data, with multiple metrics quantified from the models. Single measure, two-way, mixed-effects intra-class correlations, Bland–Altman analyses, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare quantitative measurements.

Results

From 160 MRCP datasets (25 3D FSE, 67 3D CS-FSE, 68 3D GRASE) in 69 patients, 48 datasets (7 [28%] 3D FSE, 14 [21%] 3D CS-FSE, 27 [40%] 3D GRASE) failed post-processing due to motion artifacts. The remaining 112 MRCP datasets (18 3D FSE, 53 3D CS-FSE, 41 3D GRASE) from 60 patients were included in the analysis. There was good to excellent agreement between 3D FSE and 3D CS-FSE MRCP for diameter of the left and right hepatic ducts, biliary volume, number and length of ducts, and total length of dilations (ICC: 0.83–0.93). The only metrics that exhibited good agreement between 3D FSE and 3D GRASE MRCP were biliary volume (ICC: 0.75) and total number of dilations (ICC: 0.77).

Conclusion

3D CS-FSE MRCP produces comparable biliary diameter metrics and global duct quantification to 3D FSE MRCP at a significantly reduced acquisition time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT (1999) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med 341 (4):258-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199907223410407

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nandalur KR, Hussain HK, Weadock WJ, Wamsteker EJ, Johnson TD, Khan AS, D'Amico AR, Ford MK, Nandalur SR, Chenevert TL (2008) Possible biliary disease: diagnostic performance of high-spatial-resolution isotropic 3D T2-weighted MRCP. Radiology 249 (3):883-890. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2493080389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tipnis NA, Werlin SL (2007) The use of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in children. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 9 (3):225-229. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-007-0023-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. Radiat Med 24 (3):202-209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-005-1528-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chavhan GB, Almehdar A, Moineddin R, Gupta S, Babyn PS (2013) Comparison of respiratory-triggered 3-D fast spin-echo and single-shot fast spin-echo radial slab MR cholangiopancreatography images in children. Pediatr Radiol 43 (9):1086-1092. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2663-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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. Invest Radiol 52 (10):612-619. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Anupindi SA, Victoria T (2008) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: techniques and applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 16 (3):453–466, v. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2008.04.005

  8. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feng L, Benkert T, Block KT, Sodickson DK, Otazo R, Chandarana H (2017) Compressed sensing for body MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 45 (4):966-987. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. Invest Radiol 53 (3):150-157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Feinberg DA, Oshio K (1991) GRASE (gradient- and spin-echo) MR imaging: a new fast clinical imaging technique. Radiology 181 (2):597-602. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.181.2.1924811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoshikawa T, Mitchell DG, Hirota S, Ohno Y, Yoshigi J, Maeda T, Fujii M, Sugimura K (2006) Focal liver lesions: breathhold gradient- and spin-echo T2-weighted imaging for detection and characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 23 (4):520-528. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gilligan LA, Trout AT, Lam S, Singh R, Tkach JA, Serai SD, Miethke AG, Dillman JR (2020) Differentiating pediatric autoimmune liver diseases by quantitative magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45 (1):168-176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02184-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldfinger MH, Ridgway GR, Ferreira C, Langford CR, Cheng L, Kazimianec A, Borghetto A, Wright TG, Woodward G, Hassanali N, Nicholls RC, Simpson H, Waddell T, Vikal S, Mavar M, Rymell S, Wigley I, Jacobs J, Kelly M, Banerjee R, Brady JM (2020) Quantitative MRCP Imaging: Accuracy, Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Cohort-Derived Normative Ranges. J Magn Reson Imaging 52 (3):807-820. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ralli GP, Ridway GR, Brady M (2020) Segmentation of the biliary tree from MRCP images via the monogenic signal. In: Papież B., Namburete A., Yaqub M., Noble J. (ed) Medical Image Understanding and Analysis. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Springer, Cham. p 105–117

  17. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000). Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mannes I, Dallongeville A, Badat N, Beaussier H, Chatellier G, Zins M (2020) Breath-hold compressed-sensing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared to free-breathing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography: prospective study of image quality and diagnostic performance in pancreatic disorders. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45 (4):1082-1091. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02254-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tokoro H, Yamada A, Suzuki T, Kito Y, Adachi Y, Hayashihara H, Nickel MD, Maruyama K, Fujinaga Y (2020) Usefulness of breath-hold compressed sensing accelerated three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) added to respiratory-gating conventional MRCP. Eur J Radiol 122:108765. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108765

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morimoto D, Hyodo T, Kamata K, Kadoba T, Itoh M, Fukushima H, Chiba Y, Takenaka M, Mochizuki T, Ueda Y, Miyagoshi K, Kudo M, Ishii K (2020) Navigator-triggered and breath-hold 3D MRCP using compressed sensing: image quality and method selection factor assessment. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45 (10):3081-3091. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02403-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Taron J, Weiss J, Notohamiprodjo M, Kuestner T, Bamberg F, Weiland E, Kuehn B, Martirosian P (2018) Acceleration of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing at 1.5 and 3 T: A Clinical Feasibility Study. Invest Radiol 53 (11):681–688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000489

  22. 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 48 (5):1389-1399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nam JG, Lee JM, Kang HJ, Lee SM, Kim E, Peeters JM, Yoon JH (2018) GRASE Revisited: breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a Gradient and Spin Echo (GRASE) technique at 3T. Eur Radiol 28 (9):3721-3728. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5275-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoshida M, Nakaura T, Inoue T, Tanoue S, Takada S, Utsunomiya D, Tsumagari S, Harada K, Yamashita Y (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 (6):2436–2443. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5240-y

Download references

Funding

Perspectum Ltd. provided in-kind research support for this project to Drs. Jonathan R. Dillman and Andrew T. Trout.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Imaging Research Center, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 250 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Neeraja Mahalingam & Jonathan R. Dillman

  2. Perspectum Ltd., Oxford, UK

    George P. Ralli

  3. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Andrew T. Trout & Jonathan R. Dillman

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Andrew T. Trout & Jonathan R. Dillman

  5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Andrew T. Trout

Authors
  1. Neeraja Mahalingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George P. Ralli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew T. Trout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jonathan R. Dillman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neeraja Mahalingam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Drs. Jonathan R. Dillman and Andrew T. Trout have received grant support from Perspectum Ltd, Siemens Medical Solutions, and Canon Medical Systems. Dr. Dillman has also received in-kind research support from Resoundant, Inc. and Philips Heathcare. No other authors have conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by our institutional review board and was compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Consent to participate

The requirement for participant informed consent was waived.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahalingam, N., Ralli, G.P., Trout, A.T. et al. Comparison of quantitative 3D magnetic resonance cholangiography measurements obtained using three different image acquisition methods. Abdom Radiol 47, 196–208 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03330-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03330-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation