Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare image quality and diagnostic performance of three magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) protocols in patients with suspected pancreatic abnormalities: free-breathing standard 3D-MRCP (STD), free-breathing compressed sensing 3D-MRCP (CS), and CS 3D-MRCP with acquisition during a single breath-hold > 20 s (BH-CS).

Methods

Informed consent was obtained. We performed 57 MRCPs in 56 prospectively included patients (29 men, median age 59 years). The three protocols were performed in random order. Acquisition time was recorded. Two radiologists blinded to the protocols used 5-point scales to assess image quality parameters (overall image quality, amount of artifacts, background suppression, bile and pancreatic duct visualization) and diagnostic performance (anatomical variants, duct abnormalities, cystic lesions).

Results

Acquisition time was 279 s with STD, 176 s with CS (-37%), and 22 s with BH-CS (-93%). STD and BH-CS were not significantly different for overall image quality, artifacts, or background suppression. The BH-CS group had fewer non-diagnostic scans (3% vs. 19% with STD and 21% with CS, p < 0.05), higher-quality scans (78% vs. 66% with STD and 58% with CS, p < 0.05), and milder artifacts (2% vs. 18% with STD and 16% with CS, p < 0.05). The main pancreatic duct was better visualized with BH-CS compared to STD (p = 0.015) and CS (p < 0.001). Diagnostic performance did not differ across the three protocols. There were fewer indeterminate scans in the BH-CS group.

Conclusion

3T BH-CS is reliable, saves time, and is not associated with decreases in image quality or diagnostic performance compared to STD and CS.

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 341:258–264.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nandalur KR, Hussain HK, Weadock WJ, et al (2008) Possible Biliary Disease: Diagnostic Performance of High-Spatial-Resolution Isotropic 3D T2-weighted MRCP. Radiology 249:883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Irie H, Honda H, Tajima T, et al (1998) Optimal MR cholangiopancreatographic sequence and its clinical application. Radiology 206:379–387.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wallner BK, Schumacher KA, Weidenmaier W, Friedrich JM (1991) Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequence. Radiology 181:805–808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Asbach P, Dewey M, Klessen C, et al (2006) Respiratory-triggered MRCP applying parallel acquisition techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:1095–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang J, Israel GM, Hecht EM, Krinsky GA, Babb JS, Lee VS (2006) Isotropic 3D T2-Weighted MR Cholangiopancreatography with Parallel Imaging: Feasibility Study. Am J Roentgenol 187:1564–1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 28:2436–2443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nam JG, Lee JM, Kang H-J, et al (2018) GRASE Revisited: breath-hold three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography using a Gradient and Spin Echo (GRASE) technique at 3T. Eur Radiol 28:3721–3728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM (2007) Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med 58:1182–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jaspan ON, Fleysher R, Lipton ML (2015) Compressed sensing MRI: a review of the clinical literature. Br J Radiol 88:20150487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang AC, Kretzler M, Sudarski S, Gulani V, Seiberlich N (2016) Sparse Reconstruction Techniques in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Methods, Applications, and Challenges to Clinical Adoption. Invest Radiol 51:349–364.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feng L, Benkert T, Block KT, Sodickson DK, Otazo R, Chandarana H (2017) Compressed sensing for body MRI: Compressed Sensing for Body MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:966–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Runge VM, Richter JK, Heverhagen JT (2017) Speed in Clinical Magnetic Resonance: Invest Radiol 52:1–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 280:585–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 53:681–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z, et al (2017) Compressed-Sensing Accelerated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography: Application in Suspected Pancreatic Diseases. Invest Radiol 53:150–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoon JH, Lee SM, Kang H-J, et al (2017) Clinical Feasibility of 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing: Comparison of Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance. Invest Radiol 52:612–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 48:1389–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Seo N, Park M-S, 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 46:1289–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Taylor ACF, Little AF, Hennessy OF, Banting SW, Smith PJ, Desmond PV (2002) Prospective assessment of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for noninvasive imaging of the biliary tree. Gastrointest Endosc 55:17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Worters PW, Sung K, Stevens KJ, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA (2013) Compressed-sensing multispectral imaging of the postoperative spine. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:243–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sharma SD, Fong CL, Tzung BS, Law M, Nayak KS (2013) Clinical Image Quality Assessment of Accelerated Magnetic Resonance Neuroimaging Using Compressed Sensing: Invest Radiol 48:638–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpital Saint Joseph, 185 rue Raymond Losserand, 75014, Paris, France

    Inès Mannes, Axel Dallongeville, Neesmah Badat, Hélène Beaussier & Marc Zins

  2. Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France

    Gilles Chatellier

Authors
  1. Inès Mannes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Axel Dallongeville
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neesmah Badat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hélène Beaussier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilles Chatellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marc Zins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inès Mannes.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Approval from the appropriate ethics committee (Comité de Protection de Personnes Ouest IV, #ID RCB: 2017-A02855-48).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannes, I., Dallongeville, A., Badat, N. et al. 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 45, 1082–1091 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02254-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02254-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation