DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382032065
Three-dimensional Fast-Recovery Fast Spin-Echo MRCP: Comparison with Two-dimensional Single-Shot Fast Spin-Echo Techniques1
Aaron Sodickson, MD, PhD,
Koenraad J. Mortele, MD,
Matthew A. Barish, MD,
Kelly H. Zou, PhD,
Steven Thibodeau, BS, RT and
Clare M. C. Tempany, MD
1 From the Department of Radiology (A.S., K.H.Z., S.T.), Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention (K.J.M., M.A.B., C.M.C.T.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115; and Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (K.H.Z.). Received December 18, 2003; revision requested February 20, 2004; revision received February 22, 2005; accepted March 17; final version accepted May 2.
Address correspondence to A.S. (e-mail: asodickson{at}partners.org).
View larger version (37K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3: Graph shows technical quality grades for thin-section 2D SSFSE versus coronal 3D FRFSE imaging (2D thin vs 3D) and thick-slab 2D SSFSE imaging versus 3D FRFSE rotating MIP reconstruction (2D thick vs MIP). 3D > 2D = technical quality greater with the 3D technique, 2D > 3D = quality was greater with the 2D technique. The denominator for determining percentages was 53 studies. For both readers and both comparison arms there is a significant improvement in technical quality with 3D FRFSE compared with 2D SSFSE. Mean grade differences and P values were calculated with paired Student t test.
|
|
View larger version (46K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4: Graph shows duct visibility with thin-section 2D SSFSE versus 3D FRFSE imaging. For each anatomic segment, bar graph shows the percentage of 3D studies with higher (3D > 2D) and lower (2D > 3D) visibility scores than the 2D studies. The last column shows values for all anatomic segments combined. Results from reader A (left) and reader B (right) are in each column. The absence of gray bars for the right hepatic duct (RHD), left hepatic duct (LHD), and common hepatic duct (CHD) segments indicates that there were no such grade differences in those segments. The tabular portion shows corresponding mean grade difference and P value (paired Student t test) for each reader. CBD = common bile duct, CD = cystic duct, PB = pancreatic body, PH = pancreatic head, PT = pancreatic tail.
|
|
View larger version (48K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5: Graph shows duct visibility with thick-slab 2D SSFSE imaging versus 3D FRFSE rotating MIP reconstruction. For each anatomic segment, bar graph shows the percentage of 3D studies with higher (3D > 2D) and lower (2D > 3D) visibility scores than the 2D studies. The last column shows values for all anatomic segments combined. Within each column, results from reader A are on the left and those from reader B are on the right. The absence of a gray bar for reader A in the common bile duct segment indicates that there was no such grade difference in this segment. The tabular portion shows corresponding mean grade difference and P value (paired Student t test) for each reader. See Figure 4 for abbreviations.
|
|
View larger version (37K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 6: Graph shows total visualized segments per patient for thin-section 2D SSFSE versus coronal 3D FRFSE imaging (2D thin vs 3D coronal) and thick-slab 2D SSFSE imaging versus 3D FRFSE rotating MIP reconstruction (2D thick vs 3D MIP). Bar graph shows the excess number of segments visualized per patient with the 3D technique over the corresponding 2D technique (negative numbers indicate greater number of segments visualized with 2D technique vs 3D technique). Two separate visibility threshold criteria were used for each reader and comparison arm: segments that were fully visualized and segments that were either fully or partially visualized. The table beneath each set of bars shows the average number of segments visualized with each technique, difference in number of visualized segments, and P values (Student t test).
|
|
View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 7: Graph shows total number of visualized segments per patient after exclusion of nondiagnostic studies (poor or unreadable technical quality); only diagnostic studies of excellent, slightly limited, and marginal quality were included. Data are for thin-section 2D SSFSE versus coronal 3D FRFSE imaging (2D thin vs 3D coronal) and thick-slab 2D SSFSE imaging versus 3D FRFSE rotating MIP reconstruction (2D thick vs 3D MIP). Bar graph data are the excess number of segments visualized with the 3D technique over the corresponding 2D technique (negative numbers indicate greater number of segments visualized with 2D technique vs 3D technique). Two separate visibility threshold criteria were used for each reader and comparison arm: segments that were fully visualized and segments that were either fully or partially visualized. Corresponding P values (Student t test) are beneath each bar.
|
|
View larger version (39K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 8: Graph shows interobserver agreement ( and percentage agreement) between the two readers. Data were calculated from visibility grades of all pooled anatomic segments for each of the four pulse sequences. 2D thick = thick-slab 2D SSFSE, 2D thin = thin-section 2D SSFSE, 3D coronal = coronal 3D FRFSE, 3D MIP = 3D FRFSE MIP reconstruction.
|
|
Copyright © 2006 by the Radiological Society of North America.
/800, 3-mm-thick sections) and (b) corresponding coronal 3D FRFSE image (1500/480, 4-mm-thick sections interpolated to 2 mm). (c) Oblique coronal 2D SSFSE thick-slab image (
