Comparison of 3D Maximum intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction and 2D T2 Half-Fourier Acquisition Single-Shot Turbo Spin-Echo (HASTE) sequence in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
Introduction: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is a method that allows noninvasive visualization of pancreatobiliary tree and does not require contrast application. It is a modern method based on heavily T2-weighted imaging (hydrography), which uses bile and pancreatic secretions as a natural contrast medium. Certain weaknesses in quality of demonstration of pancreatobiliary tract can be observed in addition to its good characteristics. Our aim was to compare the 3D Maximum intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction and 2D T2 Half-Fourier Acquisition Single-Shot Turbo Spin-Echo (HASTE) sequence in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.
Methods: During the period of one year 51 patients underwent MRCP on 3T „Trio“ system. Patients of different sex and age structure were included, both outpatient and hospitalized. 3D MIP reconstruction and 2D T2 haste sequence were used according to standard scanning protocols.
Results: There were 45.1% (n= 23) male and 54.9% (n=28) female patients, age range from 17 to 81 years. 2D T2 haste sequence was more susceptible to respiratory artifacts presence in 64% patients, compared to 3D MIP reconstruction with standard error (0.09), result significance indication (p=0.129) and confidence interval (0.46 to 0.81). 2D T2 haste sequences is more sensitive and superior for pancreatic duct demonstration compared to 3D MIP reconstruction with standard error (0.07), result significance indication (p=0.01) and confidence interval (0.59 to 0.87)
Conclusion: In order to make qualitative demonstration and analysis of hepatobiliary and pancreatic system on MR, both 2D T2 haste sequence in transversal plane and 3D MIP reconstruction are required.
2. Adamek HE, Albert J, Weitz M, Breer H, Schilling D, Riemann JF. A prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected biliary obstruction. Gut 1998; 43:680-683.
3. Ohgi K, Furukawa T, Akiyama H, Kimura S, Uehara K, Murata K. Basic principles and historical consideration of MR cholangiopancreatography. Nihon Rinsho 1998;56(11):2755-9.
4. Ehman RL, Felmlee JP. Adaptive technique for high-definition MR imaging of moving structures, Radiology 1989; 173: 255-263.
5. Soto JA. MR Cholangiopancreatography Using HASTE (Half-Fourier Acquisition Single-Shot Turbo Spin-Echo) Sequences. AJR 2007; 189: 5-6.
6. Isogai S, Takehara Y, Isoda H, Kaneko M. Maximum intensity projection (MIP) and multiplanar reformation (MPR) for post-processing cholangiopancreatographic data set--clinical application and pitfalls. Nihon Rinsho 1998; 56(11):2760-2767.
7. Tongdee R, Narra VR, Brown JJ. Utility of 3D magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative evaluation of hepatobiliary diseases. HPB (Oxford) 2006;8(4):311–317.
8. Vitellas KM, Keogan MT, Freed KS, Enns RA, Spritzer CE, Baillie JM et al. Radiologic Manifestations of Sclerosing Cholangitis with Emphasis on MR Cholangiopancreatography. RadioGraphics 2000; 20(4):959-975.
9. Watanabe Y, Dohke M, Ishimori T et al. Diagnostic pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of the biliary tract and gallbladder. RadioGraphics 1999; 19:415-429.
10. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, Ferrucci JT. MR cholangiopancreatography: findings on 3D fast spin-echo imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1397-1401.
11. Ueno E, Takada Y, Yoshida I, Toda J, Sugiura T, Toki F. Pancreatic diseases:evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas 1998;16(3):418-426.
12. Hennig J, Nauerth A, Friedburg H. RARE imaging: a fast imaging method for clinical MR. Magn Reson Med 1986; 3:823-833.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.