Comparison of Compressed Sensing and Gradient and Spin-Echo in Breath-Hold 3D MR Cholangiopancreatography: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Weon Jang, Ji Soo Song, Sang Heon Kim, Jae Do Yang
2021 Diagnostics  
While magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is routinely used, compressed sensing MRCP (CS-MRCP) and gradient and spin-echo MRCP (GRASE-MRCP) with breath-holding (BH) may allow sufficient image quality with shorter acquisition times. This study qualitatively and quantitatively compared BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP and evaluated their clinical effectiveness. Data from 59 consecutive patients who underwent both BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP were qualitatively analyzed using a
more » ... t Likert-type scale. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the common bile duct (CBD), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the CBD and liver, and contrast ratio between periductal tissue and the CBD were measured. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's test were used for statistical analysis. No significant differences were found in overall image quality or duct visualization of the CBD, right and left 1st level intrahepatic duct (IHD), cystic duct, and proximal pancreatic duct (PD). BH-CS-MRCP demonstrated higher background suppression and better visualization of right (p = 0.004) and left 2nd level IHD (p < 0.001), mid PD (p = 0.003), and distal PD (p = 0.041). Image quality degradation was less with BH-GRASE-MRCP than BH-CS-MRCP (p = 0.025). Of 24 patients with communication between a cyst and the PD, 21 (87.5%) and 15 patients (62.5%) demonstrated such communication on BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP, respectively. SNR, contrast ratio, and CNR of BH-CS-MRCP were higher than BH-GRASE-MRCP (p < 0.001). Both BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP are useful imaging methods with sufficient image quality. Each method has advantages, such as better visualization of small ducts with BH-CS-MRCP and greater time saving with BH-GRASE-MRCP. These differences allow diverse choices for visualization of the pancreaticobiliary tree in clinical practice.
doi:10.3390/diagnostics11040634 pmid:33915832 fatcat:aybv5ww2j5gpph2oqzzud2hmn4