Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 5.0 T: quantitative and qualitative comparison with 3.0 T.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING BMC Medical Imaging Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1186/s12880-024-01512-0
Liang Yin, ZhangZhu Li, MingYan Shang, ZongChang Li, BoWen Tang, Dan Yu, Jie Gan
{"title":"Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at 5.0 T: quantitative and qualitative comparison with 3.0 T.","authors":"Liang Yin, ZhangZhu Li, MingYan Shang, ZongChang Li, BoWen Tang, Dan Yu, Jie Gan","doi":"10.1186/s12880-024-01512-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to assess the feasibility and performance of 5.0 T MRI in MR Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging compared to 3.0 T, focusing on detail visualization, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and image artifacts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective study from May to October 2023 involved 20 healthy subjects and 19 with biliary dilation. Both groups underwent MRCP using 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners. The detail visualization capability of the biliary tree and the SNR of the images were quantitatively evaluated. Two experienced MRI diagnostic physicians assessed the image artifacts qualitatively on a scale of 1 to 5. The t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared the quantitative results of biliary visualization and SNR between 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing the level of image artifacts between the two scanners. The inter reader consistency was tested using Kappa test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In both healthy subjects and those with biliary dilation, the 5.0 T group exhibited significantly higher numbers of biliary tree branches, along with greater total and maximum branch lengths, compared to the 3.0 T group (P<0.05). Although the maximum branch length was higher in the 5.0 T group among healthy subjects, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.053). No notable differences were observed in SNR and image artifact levels between the two groups across both field strengths (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MRCP at 5.0 T offers superior biliary tree visualization compared to 3.0 T. The performance regarding SNR and image artifacts between the two is relatively comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9020,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Imaging","volume":"24 1","pages":"331"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622504/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-024-01512-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and performance of 5.0 T MRI in MR Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging compared to 3.0 T, focusing on detail visualization, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and image artifacts.

Methods: A prospective study from May to October 2023 involved 20 healthy subjects and 19 with biliary dilation. Both groups underwent MRCP using 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners. The detail visualization capability of the biliary tree and the SNR of the images were quantitatively evaluated. Two experienced MRI diagnostic physicians assessed the image artifacts qualitatively on a scale of 1 to 5. The t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared the quantitative results of biliary visualization and SNR between 3.0 T and 5.0 T scanners, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing the level of image artifacts between the two scanners. The inter reader consistency was tested using Kappa test.

Results: In both healthy subjects and those with biliary dilation, the 5.0 T group exhibited significantly higher numbers of biliary tree branches, along with greater total and maximum branch lengths, compared to the 3.0 T group (P<0.05). Although the maximum branch length was higher in the 5.0 T group among healthy subjects, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.053). No notable differences were observed in SNR and image artifact levels between the two groups across both field strengths (P>0.05).

Conclusions: MRCP at 5.0 T offers superior biliary tree visualization compared to 3.0 T. The performance regarding SNR and image artifacts between the two is relatively comparable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Imaging
BMC Medical Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.70%
发文量
198
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Imaging is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the development, evaluation, and use of imaging techniques and image processing tools to diagnose and manage disease.
期刊最新文献
High-risk habitat radiomics model based on ultrasound images for predicting lateral neck lymph node metastasis in differentiated thyroid cancer. Investigating resting-state functional connectivity changes within procedural memory network across neuropsychiatric disorders using fMRI. Optimizing hip MRI: enhancing image quality and elevating inter-observer consistency using deep learning-powered reconstruction. Comparison of diagnostic performance for pulmonary nodule detection between free-breathing spiral ultrashort echo time and free-breathing radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Knowledge discovery from database: MRI radiomic features to assess recurrence risk in high-grade meningiomas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1