Pancreatic Duct in Autoimmune Pancreatitis Intraindividual Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Pancreatography at 1.5 T and 3.0 T

被引:6
|
作者
Kim, Jin Hee [1 ,2 ]
Byun, Jae Ho [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Myung-Hwan [3 ]
Lee, Sung Koo [3 ]
Kim, Song Cheol [4 ]
Kim, Hyoung Jung [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Seung Soo [1 ,2 ]
Kim, So Yeon [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Moon-Gyu [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Dept Internal Med, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Dept Surg, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
pancreatitis; autoimmune disease; magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MAGNETIC-RESONANCE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; 3.0; T; DIAGNOSTIC-CRITERIA; MR CHOLANGIOGRAPHY; CANCER; LIVER; CONSENSUS; STRATEGY; ERCP;
D O I
10.1097/MPA.0000000000000853
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to intraindividually compare magnetic resonance pancreatography (MRP) image quality at 1.5 T and 3.0 T when demonstrating main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis (ATP). Methods: Thirty prospectively enrolled patients with AIP underwent MRP at both 1.5 T and 3.0 T followed by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography before treatment. Two readers independently analyzed the MRP images and graded the visualization of MPD strictures and full-length MPD, using endoscopic retrograde pancreatography as the reference standard, as well as overall image artifacts on a 4-point scale. The contrast between the MPD and periductal area was calculated using a region-of-interest measurement. Results: Visualization scores of MPD strictures and full-length MPD, and summed scores of each qualitative analysis, were significantly greater at 3.0-T MRP than at 1.5-T MRP for both readers (P <= 0.02). There were less image artifacts at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T (P <= 0.052). The contrast between the MPD and periductal area was significantly greater at 3.0-T MRP than at 1.5-T MRP (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The MRP at 3.0 T was superior to 1.5-T MRP for demonstrating MPD abnormalities in AIP, with better image contrast and fewer image artifacts. Consequently, 3.0-T MRP may be useful for the diagnosis and management of patients with AIP.
引用
收藏
页码:921 / 926
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Magnetic resonance fingerprinting of the pancreas at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Serrao, Eva M.
    Kessler, Dimitri A.
    Carmo, Bruno
    Beer, Lucian
    Brindle, Kevin M.
    Buonincontri, Guido
    Gallagher, Ferdia A.
    Gilbert, Fiona J.
    Godfrey, Edmund
    Graves, Martin J.
    McLean, Mary A.
    Sala, Evis
    Schulte, Rolf F.
    Kaggie, Joshua D.
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2020, 10 (01)
  • [2] Magnetic resonance fingerprinting of the pancreas at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Eva M. Serrao
    Dimitri A. Kessler
    Bruno Carmo
    Lucian Beer
    Kevin M. Brindle
    Guido Buonincontri
    Ferdia A. Gallagher
    Fiona J. Gilbert
    Edmund Godfrey
    Martin J. Graves
    Mary A. McLean
    Evis Sala
    Rolf F. Schulte
    Joshua D. Kaggie
    Scientific Reports, 10
  • [3] Intraindividual comparison of MR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Michaely, Henrik J.
    Kramer, Harald
    Oesingmann, Niels
    Lodemann, Klaus-Peter
    Miserock, Karl
    Reiser, Maximilian F.
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2007, 42 (06) : 406 - 411
  • [4] Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T:: Comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging
    Krüger, G
    Kastrup, A
    Glover, GH
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2001, 45 (04) : 595 - 604
  • [5] Intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for cerebral magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 1.5 T
    Essig, M
    Lodemann, KP
    Le-Huu, M
    Brüning, R
    Kirchin, M
    Reith, W
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (03) : 256 - 263
  • [6] Comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 T for Contrast-Enhanced Pulmonary Magnetic Resonance Angiography
    Londy, Frank Joseph
    Lowe, Suzan
    Stein, Paul D.
    Weg, John G.
    Eisner, Robert L.
    Leeper, Kenneth V.
    Woodard, Pamela K.
    Sostman, H. Dirk
    Jablonski, Kathleen A.
    Fowler, Sarah E.
    Hales, Charles A.
    Hull, Russell D.
    Gottschalk, Alexander
    Naidich, David P.
    Chenevert, Thomas L.
    CLINICAL AND APPLIED THROMBOSIS-HEMOSTASIS, 2012, 18 (02) : 134 - 139
  • [7] Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the human calf - Comparison between 1.5 T and 3.0 T - Preliminary results
    Saupe, Nadia
    White, Lawrence M.
    Sussman, Marshall S.
    Kassner, Andrea
    Tomlinson, George
    Noseworthy, Michael D.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2008, 43 (09) : 612 - 618
  • [8] COMPARISON OF MULTIMODAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING UTILIZING 1.5 T AND 3.0 T IN GLIOBLASTOMA MULTIFORME AT THE TIME OF FIRST RECURRENCE
    Ronan, Lara Kunschner
    Eskey, Clifford
    Hampton, Thomas
    Fadul, Camilo
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2013, 15 : 199 - 199
  • [9] Intraindividual comparison of high-spatial-resolution abdominal MR angiography at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: Initial experience
    Michaely, Henrik J.
    Kramer, Harald
    Dietrich, Olaf
    Nael, Kambiz
    Lodemann, Klaus-Peter
    Reiser, Maximilian F.
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    RADIOLOGY, 2007, 244 (03) : 907 - 913
  • [10] Diffusion-tensor fiber tractography: Intraindividual comparison of 3.0-T and 1.5-T MR imaging
    Okada, T
    Miki, Y
    Fushimi, Y
    Hanakawa, T
    Kanagaki, M
    Yamamoto, A
    Urayama, S
    Fukuyama, H
    Hiraoka, M
    Togashi, K
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 238 (02) : 668 - 678