HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kondo, H. Articles by Moriwaki, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kondo, H. Articles by Moriwaki, H. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

MR Cholangiography with Volume Rendering

Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis in Patients with Choledocholithiasis

¹ Department of Radiology, Gifu University School of Medicine, 40 Tsukasamachi, Gifu 500-8705, Japan.
² First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University School of Medicine, Gifu 500-8705, Japan.
³ Department of Radiology, Kyoto University Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan.
⁴ Department of Radiology, Osaka University Medical School, Osaka 565-0871, Japan.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare observer performances for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis using MR cholangiography with volume-rendered, maximum-intensity-projection, and thick-section half-Fourier rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement sequences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The images from three types of MR cholangiography performed on 43 patients with biliary calculi were retrospectively analyzed. Image review was conducted for two anatomic compartments (upper biliary tract and common bile duct). A total of 86 compartments, including 19 with bile duct calculi, were reviewed by three independent off-site gastrointestinal radiologists. Observer performance was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Image quality was subjectively judged by three radiologists.

RESULTS. Sensitivity was higher with volume-rendered MR cholangiography (58%) than with thick-section (54%, not significant) and maximum-intensity-projection MR cholangiography (47%, p < 0.07). Specificity was higher with volume-rendered MR cholangiography (92%) than with thick-section (86%, p < 0.03) and maximum-intensity-projection MR cholangiography (88%, not significant). Accuracy was higher with volume-rendered MR cholangiography (84%) than with thick-section and maximum-intensity-projection MR cholangiography (79% for both, not significant). Observer performance with volume-rendered MR cholangiography (A_z = 0.791-0.952) was better than that with thick-section (A_z = 0.722-0.834) and maximum-intensity-projection MR cholangiography (A_z = 0.771-0.887). Image quality was better with maximum-intensity-projection MR cholangiography and thick-section MR cholangiography than with volume-rendered MR cholangiography (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION. Observer performance with volume-rendered MR cholangiography was better than that with maximum-intensity-projection and thick-section MR cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Volume rendering may be an efficient technique for the reconstruction of MR cholangiography.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?