Xin Li1, Yue Qin1, Yifan Qian1, Juan Tian1, Shaoyu Wang2, Yinhu Zhu1, Liyao Liu1, Yanqiang Qiao1, and Boyuan Jiang1
1XI’AN DAXING HOSPITAL, ShaanXi, Xi’an, China, 2Siemens Healthcare Ltd, ShaanXi, Xi’an, China
Synopsis
Magnetic resonance
cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is
an effective imaging modality for the evaluation of anatomy and abnormalities of
biliary and pancreatic system. The
main drawback of conventional navigator-triggered (NT) MRCP is the long acquisition
time resulting in a greater variability in the depth of respiration, which may
create image blurring and motion artifacts.
In this study, we performed MRCP scanning using a
single breath hold (BH) 3D SPACE and NT SPACE protocols to evaluated the image
quality and acquisition time in patients with choledocholithiasis.
Introduction
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a
standard
imaging technique that provides detailed information
of the
pancreaticobiliary anatomy and pathology. Most initial study focused on 2D MRCP technique using
breath-hold (BH) acquisition sequences, while they suffered from decreased
spatial resolution and acquired non-isotropic voxel datasets. Therefore, for the
purpose of obtaining high-resolution isotropic images, 3D navigator-triggered
with Application-optimized Contrasts by using different flip angle Evolutions (NT-3D-SPACE)
MRCP sequences have been performed principally with a respiratory-triggered
technique during the last 10 years1. However, there is a clinical burden that the
acquisition time of the respiratory-triggered 3D MRCP sequence often need take
more than 6 minutes despite the use of parallel acquisition technique2.
Breath-hold
3D SPACE(BH-3D-SPACE) is modified from product NT-3D-SPACE which need just about 18 seconds for
breath-hold and have good image quality.
The
aim of this study was to compare the MRCP image quality between BH-3D-SPACE
and NT 3D-SPACE,
and furthermore to evaluate the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis
in a routine clinical setting.Methods
Seventy-eight patients (41
males and 37 females, age range 24-76 years) were enrolled in this study. All
the patients underwent conventional NT-3D-SPACE and BH-3D-SPACE sequence on a 1.5T MR scanner (MAGNETOM
Aera, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) using 6-channel body coil and 24-channel
spine coil. The parameters about two different types of SPCAE sequences were as
bellow: NT-3D-SPACE and BH-3D-SPACE.
Two
radiologists with five years of experience in abdominal radiology assessed the
images independently. They evaluated the image quality of predefined segments
of the pancreaticobiliary tree using a 5-point scale:1 = not displayed; 2 =
incompletely displayed, not diagnostic;3 = all parts of the segments are
uncertainly definable, still diagnostic; 4 = all parts of the segments are
included, some are uncertainly definable, still diagnostic; 5 = all parts of
the segments are completely and reliably definable. In a second step, the
diagnostic confidence was rated on a 5-point scale from –2 to 2: –2 = reliably
no concrement; –1 = most likely no concrement; 0 = not evaluable; 1 = most
likely concrement; 2 = reliably recognized concrement. Evaluation of image quality
and diagnostic confidence was done on the pancreaticobiliary tree which was
subdivided into 9 segments. They were scored and statistically evaluated
separately for visibility and diagnostic certainty by two blinded radiologists
with differing levels of experience on a five-point scale of 1 to 5 and -2 to
2, respectively. Student t-test was performed, and the interobserver agreement
was also calculated. Interobserver
agreement was assessed by calculating the Cohen kappa statistic (kappa<
0.00: poor agreement, kappa = 0.00-0.20: slight agreement, kappa = 0.21-0.40:
fair agreement, kappa = 0.40-0.60: moderate agreement, kappa = 0.61-0.80:
substantial agreement; kappa = 0.81-1.00: almost complete agreement).Results
The mean
acquisition time of BH-3D-SPACE MRCP was significantly shorter than that of NT-3D-SPACE
MRCP (18 seconds vs 169.3±46.3 seconds; p< 0.001, Table 1). Image quality for each segment was
significantly better for the BH-3D-SPACE sequence compared to the NT-3D-SPACE
sequence (average score: BH 3D-SPACE 4.48±0.94 vs. NT-3D-SPACE
3.98±1.20, p< 0.01). Diagnostic confidence for the reporting radiologist
was also significantly better for BH 3D-SPACE than for NT-3D-SPACE (average score: BH-3D-SPACE
1.67±0.53 vs. NT-3D-SPACE 1.41±0.67, p< 0.01). The interobserver agreement
was high in both sequences, 0.68-0.91 and 0.61-0.83, respectively.Discussion and Conclusion
The study discovered that the BH-3D-SPACE sequence allows for better image quality and shorter data acquisition
time in 1.5 T MRCP examinations and leads to a higher diagnostic confidence for
choledocholithiasis compared to conventional NT-3D-SPACE sequence. It is known that
navigator-triggered 3D-MRCP sequence have been widely used in clinical practice3. However, in patients with irregular or
shallow respiratory rhythms, respiratory-gated acquisitions may fail to trigger
correctly, prolonging scan times, or may result in images with substantial
motion artifact. Our study confirmed that optimized BH-3D-SPACE MRCP is
superior to conventional NT-3D-SPACE MRCP regarding the image quality and the level
of diagnostic confidence for choledocholithiasis (Fig. 1). Because of the
significantly better imaging results, we recommend replacing the conventional NT-3D-SPACE
sequence with a BH-3D-SPACE protocol for patients with good BH capacity in
1.5 T MRCP examinations.Acknowledgements
We thank Shaoyu
Wang of Siemens Healthcare, Ltd., Xi’an, China, for technical support.
References
1.Zins M. Breath-holding 3D MRCP:
the time is now? European Radiology 2018; 28(9): 3719-3720.
2 .Sudholt P, Zaehringer C, Urigo
C, Tyndall A, Bongartz G, Hohmann J. Comparison of Optimized 3D-SPACE and
3D-TSE Sequences at 1.5T MRCP in the Diagnosis of Choledocholithiasis. Rofo
2015; 187(6): 467-471.
3.Taron J, Weiss J,
Notohamiprodjo M, et al. Acceleration of Magnetic Resonance
Cholangiopancreatography Using Compressed Sensing at 1.5 and 3 T: A Clinical
Feasibility Study. Investigative Radiology 2018; 53: 1.