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
  • [31] Magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the canine brain at 3.0 T and 7.0 T
    Martin-Vaquero, Paula
    da Costa, Ronaldo C.
    Echandi, Rita L.
    Sammet, Christina L.
    Knopp, Michael V.
    Sammet, Steffen
    RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE, 2012, 93 (01) : 427 - 429
  • [32] Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer
    Park, Byung Kwan
    Kim, Bohyun
    Kim, Chan Kyo
    Lee, Hyun Moo
    Kwon, Ghee Young
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2007, 31 (04) : 534 - 538
  • [33] Impact of an endorectal coil for 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0 T in comparison to 1.5 T: Do we need an endorectal coil?
    Hoffner, Maximilian K. M.
    Huebner, Frank
    Scholtz, Jan Erik
    Zangos, Stephan
    Schulz, Boris
    Luboldt, Wolfgang
    Vogl, Thomas J.
    Bodelle, Boris
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (08) : 1432 - 1438
  • [34] Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging - Comparison of 1.5 T and 3.0 T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesions
    Chang, JM
    Lee, JM
    Lee, MW
    Choi, JY
    Kim, SH
    Lee, JY
    Han, JK
    Choi, BI
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (02) : 168 - 174
  • [35] Scan-rescan and intra-observer variability of magnetic resonance imaging of carotid atherosclerosis at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Vidal, Arvin
    Bureau, Yves
    Wade, Trevor
    Spence, J. David
    Rutt, Brian K.
    Fenster, Aaron
    Parraga, Grace
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2008, 53 (23): : 6821 - 6835
  • [36] Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of benign prostatic tissue: findings at 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T-initial experience
    Chitkara, Munish
    Westphalen, Antonio
    Kurhanewicz, John
    Qayyum, Aliya
    Poder, Liina
    Reed, Galen
    Coakley, Fergus V.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2011, 35 (04) : 288 - 293
  • [37] Effect of 1.5-T and 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging on the ceramic adhesion and physical properties of prosthetic substructures
    Baysal, Nurten
    Ayyildiz, Simel
    Orujalipoor, Ilghar
    Erol, Baris Filiz
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 124 (06): : 809.e1 - 809.e7
  • [38] IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T
    Cui, Yong
    Dyvorne, Hadrien
    Besa, Cecilia
    Cooper, Nancy
    Taouli, Bachir
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY OPEN, 2015, 2 : 123 - 128
  • [39] The comparison of diffusion tensor imaging in human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Xiaodan Li
    Rui Chen
    Xi Xu
    Zebin Xiao
    Xiaoyu Wei
    Yuelong Yang
    Zhongping Zhang
    Zhigang Wu
    Yanjie Zhu
    Hui Liu
    BMC Medical Imaging, 23
  • [40] The comparison of diffusion tensor imaging in human hearts between 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Li, Xiaodan
    Chen, Rui
    Xu, Xi
    Xiao, Zebin
    Wei, Xiaoyu
    Yang, Yuelong
    Zhang, Zhongping
    Wu, Zhigang
    Zhu, Yanjie
    Liu, Hui
    BMC MEDICAL IMAGING, 2023, 23 (01)