PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of images obtained by T1-weighted hepatobiliary MR cholangiography using Gd-EOB-DTPA with 1-mm isovoxel acquisition and compressed sensing (T1-MRCCS) or parallel imaging (T1-MRCPI) for assessment of biliary tree anatomy.
METHODS: We prospectively reviewed T1-MRCCS, T1-MRCPI, and respiratory-triggered 3D T2-weighted MR cholangiography (T2-MRC) images in 58 patients. Two radiologists independently assessed the three sets of images and scored the biliary tree visualization and overall image quality in all cases using a 5-point Likert scale. The resulting scores were compared among T1-MRCCS, T1-MRCPI, and T2-MRC images using a Friedman test followed by a Scheffe test. The inter-reader agreement in scoring was assessed using κ statistics.
RESULTS: The image quality scores for the gallbladder on both T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were significantly lower than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.01) for both readers. Meanwhile, the image quality scores for the right and left hepatic ducts and the anterior and posterior branches of the right hepatic duct on both T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were significantly higher than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.05) for both readers. For Reader 2, the overall image quality scores on T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were both significantly higher than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the image quality scores on T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI for visualization of each bile duct (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There may be no significant difference in quality between T1-MRCCS images and T1-MRCPI images for assessment of biliary tree anatomy, and both types of images may be better than T2-MRC images, although clinical indication is limited compared with T2-MRC.
METHODS: We prospectively reviewed T1-MRCCS, T1-MRCPI, and respiratory-triggered 3D T2-weighted MR cholangiography (T2-MRC) images in 58 patients. Two radiologists independently assessed the three sets of images and scored the biliary tree visualization and overall image quality in all cases using a 5-point Likert scale. The resulting scores were compared among T1-MRCCS, T1-MRCPI, and T2-MRC images using a Friedman test followed by a Scheffe test. The inter-reader agreement in scoring was assessed using κ statistics.
RESULTS: The image quality scores for the gallbladder on both T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were significantly lower than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.01) for both readers. Meanwhile, the image quality scores for the right and left hepatic ducts and the anterior and posterior branches of the right hepatic duct on both T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were significantly higher than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.05) for both readers. For Reader 2, the overall image quality scores on T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI were both significantly higher than those on T2-MRC (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the image quality scores on T1-MRCCS and T1-MRCPI for visualization of each bile duct (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There may be no significant difference in quality between T1-MRCCS images and T1-MRCPI images for assessment of biliary tree anatomy, and both types of images may be better than T2-MRC images, although clinical indication is limited compared with T2-MRC.
摘要：
目的：比较使用Gd-EOB-DTPA的T1加权肝胆管MR胆管造影与1-mm等体素采集和压缩感知（T1-MRCCS）或并行成像（T1-MRCPI）评估胆道树解剖结构的图像质量。
方法：我们前瞻性地回顾了T1-MRCCS，T1-MRCPI,58例患者的呼吸触发3DT2加权MR胆管造影（T2-MRC）图像。两名放射科医生独立评估了三组图像，并使用5点Likert量表对所有情况下的胆道树可视化和整体图像质量进行了评分。所得分数在T1-MRCCS之间进行比较，T1-MRCPI,和T2-MRC图像使用Friedman测试，然后进行Scheffe测试。使用κ统计量评估读者之间的评分一致性。
结果：两位读者的T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的胆囊图像质量评分均显着低于T2-MRC（p<0.01）。同时,两位读者在T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI上的右肝管和右肝管前后分支的图像质量评分均显著高于T2-MRC上的图像质量评分(p<0.05).对于Reader2，T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的总体图像质量评分均显着高于T2-MRC（p<0.05）。T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的图像质量评分对于每个胆管的可视化没有显着差异（p<0.05）。
结论：T1-MRCCS图像和T1-MRCPI图像在评估胆道树解剖结构方面的质量可能没有显著差异，两种类型的图像都可能比T2-MRC图像更好，尽管与T2-MRC相比，临床适应症有限。
方法：我们前瞻性地回顾了T1-MRCCS，T1-MRCPI,58例患者的呼吸触发3DT2加权MR胆管造影（T2-MRC）图像。两名放射科医生独立评估了三组图像，并使用5点Likert量表对所有情况下的胆道树可视化和整体图像质量进行了评分。所得分数在T1-MRCCS之间进行比较，T1-MRCPI,和T2-MRC图像使用Friedman测试，然后进行Scheffe测试。使用κ统计量评估读者之间的评分一致性。
结果：两位读者的T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的胆囊图像质量评分均显着低于T2-MRC（p<0.01）。同时,两位读者在T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI上的右肝管和右肝管前后分支的图像质量评分均显著高于T2-MRC上的图像质量评分(p<0.05).对于Reader2，T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的总体图像质量评分均显着高于T2-MRC（p<0.05）。T1-MRCCS和T1-MRCPI的图像质量评分对于每个胆管的可视化没有显着差异（p<0.05）。
结论：T1-MRCCS图像和T1-MRCPI图像在评估胆道树解剖结构方面的质量可能没有显著差异，两种类型的图像都可能比T2-MRC图像更好，尽管与T2-MRC相比，临床适应症有限。
