Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography and Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography Versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Extrahepatic Biliary Pathology

Overview

Journal Radiol Med

Specialty Radiology

Date 2010 Feb 24

PMID 20177983

Citations 9

Authors

S Palmucci

L A Mauro

S La Scola

S Incarbone

G Bonanno

P Milone

A Russo

G C Ettorre

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in evaluating the cause of extrahepatic bile duct dilatation.

Materials And Methods: Forty-five patients (26 men, mean age 57 years) with extrahepatic biliary dilatation, as shown by transabdominal ultrasound, with or without elevated biliary and pancreatic serum indices, were prospectively studied with MRCP and EUS between September 2007 and October 2008. EUS and MRCP were performed within no more than 24 h of each other to reduce the possibility of changes due to stone migration. Image analysis was carried out in a double-blind fashion.

Results: MRCP had 88.9% diagnostic accuracy, 91.9% sensitivity and 75% specificity, with 94.4% positive predictive value and 66.7% negative predictive value. EUS had 93.3% diagnostic accuracy, 97.3% sensitivity and 75% specificity; the positive and negative predictive values were 94.7% and 85.7%, respectively.

Conclusions: MRCP and EUS do not show significant statistical differences in diagnostic accuracy. MRCP is an accurate, noninvasive modality in the study of extrahepatic biliary pathology. EUS is especially reliable in patients with extrahepatic biliary obstruction caused by endoluminal sludge.

Citing Articles

Major iatrogenic bile duct injury during elective cholecystectomy: a Czech population register-based study.

Klos D, Gregorik M, Pavlik T, Lovecek M, Tesarikova J, Skalicky P Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023; 408(1):154.

PMID: 37079112 PMC: 10116090. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-02897-2.

Exploration of an effective training system for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases with EUS: A prospective study.

Han C, Nie C, Shen X, Xu T, Liu J, Ding Z Endosc Ultrasound. 2020; 9(5):308-318.

PMID: 32913147 PMC: 7811728. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_47_20.

Iatrogenic bile duct injury: impact and management challenges.

Pesce A, Palmucci S, La Greca G, Puleo S Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2019; 12:121-128.

PMID: 30881079 PMC: 6408920. DOI: 10.2147/CEG.S169492.

Uncommon neoplasms of the biliary tract: radiological findings.

Granata V, Fusco Md R, Catalano O, Filice S, Avallone A, Piccirillo M Br J Radiol. 2017; 90(1078):20160561.

PMID: 28731820 PMC: 5853349. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160561.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience.

Makmun D, Fauzi A, Shatri H Clin Endosc. 2017; 50(5):486-490.

PMID: 28241408 PMC: 5642074. DOI: 10.5946/ce.2016.159.

References

Lee M, Lee H, Kim M, Kang E, Kim Y, Lee S . Extrahepatic biliary diseases: 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997; 202(3):663-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051013. View

Maurea S, Caleo O, Mollica C, Imbriaco M, Mainenti P, Palumbo C . Comparative diagnostic evaluation with MR cholangiopancreatography, ultrasonography and CT in patients with pancreatobiliary disease. Radiol Med. 2009; 114(3):390-402. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-009-0374-x. View

De Filippo M, Calabrese M, Quinto S, Rastelli A, Bertellini A, Martora R . Congenital anomalies and variations of the bile and pancreatic ducts: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography findings, epidemiology and clinical significance. Radiol Med. 2008; 113(6):841-59. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-008-0298-x. View

Outwater E, Gordon S . Imaging the pancreatic and biliary ducts with MR. Radiology. 1994; 192(1):19-21. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.192.1.8208936. View

Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P, Pelletier G, Fritsch J, Choury A . Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis. Lancet. 1996; 347(8994):75-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90208-1. View

Choi J, Kim M, Lee J, Lee J, Kim S, Kim K . Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison of two- and three-dimensional sequences for assessment of malignant biliary obstruction. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(1):78-86. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-007-0670-6. View

Fernandez-Esparrach G, Gines A, Sanchez M, Pages M, Pellise M, Fernandez-Cruz L . Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102(8):1632-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01333.x. View

Scheiman J, Carlos R, Barnett J, Elta G, Nostrant T, Chey W . Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96(10):2900-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.04245.x. View

Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, De Berardinis F . Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998; 48(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(98)70121-x. View

10.

Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J . Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 60(5):721-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02169-8. View

11.

Fulcher A, Turner M, Capps G, Zfass A, Baker K . Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. Radiology. 1998; 207(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530295. View

12.

Soto J, Barish M, Yucel E, Siegenberg D, Ferrucci J, Chuttani R . Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 1996; 110(2):589-97. DOI: 10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8566608. View

13.

Nakazawa S . Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasonography. J Gastroenterol. 2000; 35(4):257-60. DOI: 10.1007/s005350050342. View

14.

Materne R, Van Beers B, Gigot J, Jamart J, Geubel A, Pringot J . Extrahepatic biliary obstruction: magnetic resonance imaging compared with endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy. 2000; 32(1):3-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-86. View

15.

Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, Toda N, Sasahira N, Nakai Y . Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 54(2):271-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.007. View

16.

Amouyal P, Palazzo L, Amouyal G, Ponsot P, Mompoint D, Vilgrain V . Endosonography: promising method for diagnosis of extrahepatic cholestasis. Lancet. 1989; 2(8673):1195-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91801-1. View

17.

McMahon C . The relative roles of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis of malignant common bile duct strictures: a critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging. 2007; 33(1):10-3. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-007-9305-2. View

18.

Schmidt S, Chevallier P, Novellas S, Gelsi E, Vanbiervliet G, Tran A . Choledocholithiasis: repetitive thick-slab single-shot projection magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography versus endoscopic ultrasonography. Eur Radiol. 2006; 17(1):241-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0380-5. View

19.

Becker C, Grossholz M, Becker M, Mentha G, de Peyer R, Terrier F . Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997; 205(2):523-30. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356639. View

20.

Irie H, Honda H, Shinozaki K, Yoshimitsu K, Aibe H, Nishie A . MR imaging of ampullary carcinomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002; 26(5):711-7. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-200209000-00008. View