Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with compressed sensing at 1.5 T: clinical application for the evaluation of branch duct IPMN of the pancreas.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breath Holding
Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance
/ methods
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreas
Pancreatic Ducts
/ diagnostic imaging
Pancreatic Intraductal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Pressure
Magnetic resonance imaging
Pancreas
Pancreatic intraductal neoplasms
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
31
03
2020
accepted:
29
05
2020
revised:
23
04
2020
pubmed:
20
6
2020
medline:
25
3
2021
entrez:
20
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) with compressed sensing (CS) for the assessment of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BD-IPMN) of the pancreas. For this purpose, conventional navigator-triggered (NT) sampling perfection with application-optimized contrast using different flip angle evolutions (SPACE) MRCP was compared with various CS-SPACE-MRCP sequences in a clinical setting. A total of 41 patients (14 male, 27 female, mean age 68 years) underwent 1.5-T MRCP for the evaluation of BD-IPMN. The MRCP protocol consisted of the following sequences: conventional NT-SPACE-MRCP, CS-SPACE-MRCP with long (BHL, 17 s) and short single breath-hold (BHS, 8 s), and NT-CS-SPACE-MRCP. Two board-certified radiologists evaluated image quality, duct sharpness, duct visualization, lesion conspicuity, confidence, and communication with the main pancreatic duct in consensus using a 5-point scale (1-5), with higher scores indicating better quality/delineation/confidence. Maximum intensity projection reconstructions and originally acquired data were used for evaluation. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the intra-individual difference between sequences. BHS-CS-SPACE-MRCP had the highest scores for image quality (3.85 ± 0.79), duct sharpness (3.81 ± 1.05), and duct visualization (3.81 ± 1.01). There was a significant difference compared with NT-CS-SPACE-MRCP (p < 0.05) but no significant difference to the standard NT-SPACE-MRCP (p > 0.05). Concerning diagnostic quality, BHS-CS-SPACE-MRCP had the highest scores in lesion conspicuity (3.95 ± 0.92), confidence (4.12 ± 1.08), and communication (3.8 ± 1.06), significantly higher compared with NT-SPACE-MRCP, BHL-SPACE-MRCP, and NT-CS-SPACE-MRCP (p = <0.05). MRCP with CS 3D SPACE for the evaluation of BD-IPMN at 1.5 T provides the best results using a short breath-hold sequence. This approach is feasible and an excellent alternative to standard NT 3D MRCP sequences. • 1.5-T MRCP with compressed sensing for the evaluation of branch duct IPMN is a feasible method. • Short breath-hold sequences provide the best results for this purpose.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32556465
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06996-2
pii: 10.1007/s00330-020-06996-2
pmc: PMC7554004
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6014-6021Références
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2008 Aug;16(3):453-66, v
pubmed: 18585598
Pancreatology. 2017 Sep - Oct;17(5):738-753
pubmed: 28735806
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1389-1399
pubmed: 29656611
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Dec;58(6):1182-95
pubmed: 17969013
Oncol Lett. 2015 Apr;9(4):1917-1921
pubmed: 25789068
Invest Radiol. 2018 Nov;53(11):681-688
pubmed: 29889672
Radiology. 2016 Aug;280(2):585-94
pubmed: 26982678
Eur J Radiol. 2020 Jan;122:108765
pubmed: 31830630
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Sep;28(3):685-90
pubmed: 18777552
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 May;44(5):1766-1772
pubmed: 30659308
Radiol Clin North Am. 2014 Jul;52(4):757-77
pubmed: 24889170
Eur J Radiol. 2018 May;102:74-82
pubmed: 29685548
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Jul;14(7):911-923
pubmed: 28533111
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Nov;46(5):1289-1297
pubmed: 28295827
Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):549-59
pubmed: 16436816
Invest Radiol. 2018 Mar;53(3):150-157
pubmed: 28976478
Invest Radiol. 2017 Oct;52(10):612-619
pubmed: 28448309
Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Oct;52:131-136
pubmed: 29859947
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009 May-Jun;33(3):363-8
pubmed: 19478628
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Sep;7(9):882-92
pubmed: 25129517
Radiology. 2015 Mar;274(3):723-33
pubmed: 25302831
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Sep;43(9):2255-2261
pubmed: 29302736