Comparison of MRCP and ERCP in the evaluation of common bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.
biliary pancreatic region
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
gastrointestinal disorders
gold standard
magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
Journal
Frontiers in medical technology
ISSN: 2673-3129
Titre abrégé: Front Med Technol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101772626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
17
05
2022
accepted:
22
06
2023
medline:
31
7
2023
pubmed:
31
7
2023
entrez:
31
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive imaging modality that has high diagnostic accuracy for a wide range of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still the gold standard for the exploration of the biliopancreatic region. The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with that of ERCP in the diagnosis of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. A total of 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct pathologies detected on MRCP were subsequently evaluated by ERCP in this observational study. A comparison of MRCP findings with ERCP was made. MRCP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 88.1%, 94.4%, 97.3%, 72.7%, and 90%, respectively, in diagnosing choledocholithiasis in comparison to ERCP. For CBD dilation, the sensitivity was 90.91%, specificity was 93.75% and the PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 97.56%, 78.95%, and 91.67%, respectively, for MRCP. In CBD stricture, MRCP showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 83.33%, 97.92%, 90.91%, 95.92%, and 95%, respectively. In pancreatic duct dilatation, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all 100%. Pancreatic duct stricture showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. For the diagnosis of periampullary carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rate of MRCP were 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. No significant difference was found between MRCP and ERCP in diagnosing those six pathologies.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a non-invasive imaging modality that has high diagnostic accuracy for a wide range of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still the gold standard for the exploration of the biliopancreatic region.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRCP with that of ERCP in the diagnosis of bile duct and pancreatic duct pathologies.
Material and methods
UNASSIGNED
A total of 60 patients with common bile duct (CBD) and pancreatic duct pathologies detected on MRCP were subsequently evaluated by ERCP in this observational study. A comparison of MRCP findings with ERCP was made.
Results
UNASSIGNED
MRCP had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of 88.1%, 94.4%, 97.3%, 72.7%, and 90%, respectively, in diagnosing choledocholithiasis in comparison to ERCP. For CBD dilation, the sensitivity was 90.91%, specificity was 93.75% and the PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 97.56%, 78.95%, and 91.67%, respectively, for MRCP. In CBD stricture, MRCP showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 83.33%, 97.92%, 90.91%, 95.92%, and 95%, respectively. In pancreatic duct dilatation, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all 100%. Pancreatic duct stricture showed a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively. For the diagnosis of periampullary carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy rate of MRCP were 80%, 98%, 88.89%, 96.08%, and 95%, respectively.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
No significant difference was found between MRCP and ERCP in diagnosing those six pathologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37521722
doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2023.946555
pmc: PMC10374843
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
946555Informations de copyright
© 2023 Kumar, Mohanty, Mohanty and Dash.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Radiographics. 2000 Jul-Aug;20(4):939-57; quiz 1107-8, 1112
pubmed: 10903685
Radiology. 1995 Aug;196(2):459-64
pubmed: 7617861
Insights Imaging. 2012 Feb;3(1):11-21
pubmed: 22695995
Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 May;100(5):1051-7
pubmed: 15842578
Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1781-8
pubmed: 17509029
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2010 Aug;14(8):721-5
pubmed: 20707292
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Dec;56(6 Suppl):S165-9
pubmed: 12447261
Radiology. 2004 Jun;231(3):767-74
pubmed: 15105450
Gut. 1998 Nov;43(5):680-3
pubmed: 9824351
Radiology. 1994 Jul;192(1):73-8
pubmed: 8208969
J Pak Med Assoc. 2022 Feb;72(2):284-286
pubmed: 35320178
Endoscopy. 1997 Mar;29(3):182-7
pubmed: 9201467
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct;197(4):W551-8
pubmed: 21940525
Eur Radiol. 1999;9(7):1411-7
pubmed: 10460385
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1998 Apr;21(4):174-80
pubmed: 9633177
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(1):15-26
pubmed: 17252293
Cureus. 2023 Feb 1;15(2):e34484
pubmed: 36874324
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Feb;9(2):157-62
pubmed: 10077008
J Dig Dis. 2008 Aug;9(3):162-9
pubmed: 18956595
Radiology. 1996 Jul;200(1):85-9
pubmed: 8657949