Three-dimensional MR Cholangiopancreatography in a Breath Hold with Sparsity-based Reconstruction of Highly Undersampled Data.

Overview

abstract

Purpose To develop a three-dimensional breath-hold (BH) magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatographic protocol with sampling perfection with application-optimized contrast using different flip-angle evolutions (SPACE) acquisition and sparsity-based iterative reconstruction (SPARSE) of prospectively sampled 5% k-space data and to compare the results with conventional respiratory-triggered (RT) acquisition. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant prospective study was institutional review board approved. Twenty-nine patients underwent conventional RT SPACE and BH-accelerated SPACE acquisition with 5% k-space sampling at 3 T. Spatial resolution and other parameters were matched when possible. BH SPACE images were reconstructed by enforcing joint multicoil sparsity in the wavelet domain (SPARSE-SPACE). Two board-certified radiologists independently evaluated BH SPARSE-SPACE and RT SPACE images for image quality parameters in the pancreatic duct and common bile duct by using a five-point scale. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare BH SPARSE-SPACE and RT SPACE images. Results Acquisition time for BH SPARSE-SPACE was 20 seconds, which was significantly (P < .001) shorter than that for RT SPACE (mean ± standard deviation, 338.8 sec ± 69.1). Overall image quality scores were higher for BH SPARSE-SPACE than for RT SPACE images for both readers for the proximal, middle, and distal pancreatic duct, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). For reader 1, distal common bile duct scores were significantly higher with BH SPARSE-SPACE acquisition (P = .036). More patients had acceptable or better overall image quality (scores ≥ 3) with BH SPARSE-SPACE than with RT SPACE acquisition, respectively, for the proximal (23 of 29 [79%] vs 22 of 29 [76%]), middle (22 of 29 [76%] vs 18 of 29 [62%]), and distal (20 of 29 [69%] vs 13 of 29 [45%]) pancreatic duct and the proximal (25 of 28 [89%] vs 22 of 28 [79%]) and distal (25 of 28 [89%] vs 24 of 28 [86%]) common bile duct. Conclusion BH SPARSE-SPACE showed similar or superior image quality for the pancreatic and common duct compared with that of RT SPACE despite 17-fold shorter acquisition time. (©) RSNA, 2016.