Pitfalls in MR cholangiopancreatographic interpretation.

Magnetic resonance (MR) cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is widely used in the evaluation of pancreatobiliary disorders. However, numerous related pitfalls may simulate or mask pancreatobiliary disease. Maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reconstructed images completely obscure small filling defects and may demonstrate respiratory motion artifacts. T2 weighting may vary with different MR imaging sequences and influence MRCP findings. Incomplete imaging may create confusion regarding ductal anatomy or disease. Furthermore, MRCP yields only static images and thus may fail to depict various anomalies. Limited spatial resolution makes differentiation between benign and malignant strictures with MRCP alone extremely difficult. Susceptibility artifacts may be caused by metallic foreign bodies or gastric-duodenal gas. Fluid accumulation may produce a pseudolesion or pseudostricture, although changing the imaging angle or section thickness may be helpful. Pneumobilia may be misinterpreted as bile duct stones, and true stones may be overlooked. Pulsatile vascular compression can cause pseudo-obstruction of the bile duct. Use of both source and MIP reconstructed images obtained from different angles can help avoid cystic duct-related pitfalls. Repeat MRCP or conventional MR imaging can help avoid pitfalls related to the periampullary region. Segmental collapse of the normal main pancreatic duct may be misinterpreted as stenosis, but administration of secretin is helpful. An awareness of these pitfalls and possible solutions is crucial for avoiding misinterpretation of MRCP images.

[1]  J. Sung,et al.  Choledocholithiasis: comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. , 1996, Radiology.

[2]  H. Honda,et al.  Value of MR cholangiopancreatography in evaluating choledochal cysts. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  In vitro and clinical studies of image acquisition in breath-hold MR cholangiopancreatography: single-shot projection technique versus multislice technique. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  H. Honda,et al.  Optimal MR cholangiopancreatographic sequence and its clinical application. , 1998, Radiology.

[5]  T. Ishimori,et al.  Diagnostic pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of the biliary tract and gallbladder. , 1999, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[6]  C. Reinhold,et al.  Current status of MR cholangiopancreatography. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  R. Edelman,et al.  Pitfalls in the interpretation of MR cholangiopancreatography. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  T. Takahara,et al.  [High concentration ferric ammonium citrate (FAC) solution as a negative bowel contrast agent]. , 1995, Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai zasshi. Nippon acta radiologica.

[9]  M A Turner,et al.  Half-Fourier RARE MR cholangiopancreatography: experience in 300 subjects. , 1998, Radiology.

[10]  Y. Takehara Can MRCP replace ERCP? , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  Y. Atomi,et al.  Diagnosis of anomalous pancreaticobiliary junction: value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. , 1998, Surgery.

[12]  H. Honda,et al.  MR cholangiopancreatographic differentiation of benign and malignant intraductal mucin-producing tumors of the pancreas. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  M. Kanematsu,et al.  Potential pitfall of MR cholangiopancreatography: right hepatic arterial impression of the common hepatic duct. , 1999, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  T. Metens,et al.  Pancreatic duct: morphologic and functional evaluation with dynamic MR pancreatography after secretin stimulation. , 1997, Radiology.

[15]  A. Fulcher,et al.  Pitfalls of MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). , 1998, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[16]  D Saloner,et al.  Artifacts in maximum-intensity-projection display of MR angiograms. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  J Hennig,et al.  RARE imaging: A fast imaging method for clinical MR , 1986, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  J. Soto,et al.  MR cholangiopancreatography: findings on 3D fast spin-echo imaging. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  M Hareyama,et al.  Mucin-producing pancreatic tumors: comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. , 1998, Radiology.

[20]  R Felix,et al.  Clinical Significance of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) Compared to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) , 1997, Endoscopy.