Comparison of Compressed Sensing and Gradient and Spin-Echo in Breath-Hold 3D MR Cholangiopancreatography: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

Abstract

While magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is routinely used, compressed sensing MRCP (CS-MRCP) and gradient and spin-echo MRCP (GRASE-MRCP) with breath-holding (BH) may allow sufficient image quality with shorter acquisition times. This study qualitatively and quantitatively compared BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP and evaluated their clinical effectiveness. Data from 59 consecutive patients who underwent both BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP were qualitatively analyzed using a five-point Likert-type scale. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the common bile duct (CBD), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the CBD and liver, and contrast ratio between periductal tissue and the CBD were measured. Paired t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar’s test were used for statistical analysis. No significant differences were found in overall image quality or duct visualization of the CBD, right and left 1st level intrahepatic duct (IHD), cystic duct, and proximal pancreatic duct (PD). BH-CS-MRCP demonstrated higher background suppression and better visualization of right (p = 0.004) and left 2nd level IHD (p < 0.001), mid PD (p = 0.003), and distal PD (p = 0.041). Image quality degradation was less with BH-GRASE-MRCP than BH-CS-MRCP (p = 0.025). Of 24 patients with communication between a cyst and the PD, 21 (87.5%) and 15 patients (62.5%) demonstrated such communication on BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP, respectively. SNR, contrast ratio, and CNR of BH-CS-MRCP were higher than BH-GRASE-MRCP (p < 0.001). Both BH-CS-MRCP and BH-GRASE-MRCP are useful imaging methods with sufficient image quality. Each method has advantages, such as better visualization of small ducts with BH-CS-MRCP and greater time saving with BH-GRASE-MRCP. These differences allow diverse choices for visualization of the pancreaticobiliary tree in clinical practice.

Feasibility and Implementation of a Deep Learning MR Reconstruction for TSE Sequences in Musculoskeletal Imaging

“…The acquisition time of MRI is primarily determined by the achievable sampling rate for a given contrast and image quality, which, in turn, is determined by the number of samples needed for the image reconstruction for a given size and resolution. Over the past decades, different acceleration strategies have been proposed and established such as parallel imaging (PI) and Compressed Sensing (CS) [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. These techniques Diagnostics 2021, 11, 1484 2 of 16 acquire a reduced amount of k-space data with an array of receiver coils and afterwards reconstruct images from the acquired, under sampled data [2,14].…”

Evaluating the Quality of Optimal MRCP Image Using RT-2D-Compressed SENSE(CS)Turbo Spin Echo: Comparing Respiratory Triggering(RT)-2D-SENSE Turbo Spin Echo and Breath Hold-2D-Single-Shot Turbo Spin Echo

“…However, it should be noted that it excluded patients who could not cooperate with breathing control [ 19 ]. In comparisons of the common bile duct, the largest of the biliary system tissues, it was 26.68 ± 14.58 and 37.48 ± 20.22 with the existing techniques, while it was 65.97 ± 3.63 and 55.03 ± 5.26 with the present technique, and the mean SNR and CNR values were higher in this study than in the comparisons [ 20 ].…”

Non-Invasive Imaging Methods to Evaluate Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease with Fat Quantification: A Review

“…On the basis of recent developments, alternative advanced techniques for time shortening have emerged such as compressed sensing and MR fingerprinting for assessing fat quantification of the liver [98][99][100]. Despite requiring a pulse sequence from highperformance hardware and software [101], compressed sensing MRI reconstruction enables reconstruction of MRI scans by acquiring fewer data via variable density incoherent undersampling of k-spaces, hence reducing acquisition time [98].…”