Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: pitfalls in interpretation

  • Special Section: Benign Biliary Disease
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has become a widely accepted noninvasive diagnostic tool in the assessment of pancreatic and biliary disease. MRCP essentially exploits extended T2 relaxation times of slow-moving fluid and delineates the outline of biliary and pancreatic ducts on T2-weighted images. In order to maximize the clinical implication of MRCP, it is of utmost importance for radiologists to optimize the acquisition technique, be aware of patient-related factors and physiologic changes than can affect its performance and interpretation. It is critical to understand the most common artifacts and pitfalls encountered during acquisition and interpretation of MRCP. We provide a general overview of the different pitfalls encountered in MRCP and pearls on how to manage them in real-world practice.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dooms GC, Fisher MR, Higgins CB, Hricak H, Goldberg HI, Margulis AR (1986) MR imaging of the dilated biliary tract. Radiology 158 (2):337-341. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.158.2.3941860

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wallner BK, Schumacher KA, Weidenmaier W, Friedrich JM (1991) Dilated biliary tract: evaluation with MR cholangiography with a T2-weighted contrast-enhanced fast sequence. Radiology 181 (3):805-808. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.181.3.1947101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang SK, Heacock L, Doshi AM, Ream JR, Sun J, Babb JS (2017) Comparative performance of non-contrast MRI with HASTE vs. contrast-enhanced MRI/3D-MRCP for possible choledocholithiasis in hospitalized patients. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42 (6):1650–1658. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1039-6

  4. Irie H, Honda H, Kuroiwa T, Yoshimitsu K, Aibe H, Shinozaki K, Masuda K (2001) Pitfalls in MR cholangiopancreatographic interpretation. Radiographics 21 (1):23-37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.21.1.g01ja0523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Griffin N, Charles-Edwards G, Grant LA (2012) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the ABC of MRCP. Insights Imaging 3 (1):11-21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-011-0129-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu L, Wu X, Sun Z, Jin Z, Weiland E, Raithel E, Qian T, Xue H (2018) Compressed-Sensing Accelerated 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography: Application in Suspected Pancreatic Diseases. Invest Radiol 53 (3):150-157. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhu L, Xue H, Sun Z, Qian T, Weiland E, Kuehn B, Asbach P, Hamm B, Jin Z (2018) Modified breath-hold compressed-sensing 3D MR cholangiopancreatography with a small field-of-view and high resolution acquisition: Clinical feasibility in biliary and pancreatic disorders. J Magn Reson Imaging 48 (5):1389-1399. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Merkle EM, Nelson RC (2006) Dual gradient-echo in-phase and opposed-phase hepatic MR imaging: a useful tool for evaluating more than fatty infiltration or fatty sparing. Radiographics 26 (5):1409-1418. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.265055711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eason JB, Taylor AJ, Yu J (2013) MRI in the workup of biliary tract filling defects. J Magn Reson Imaging 37 (5):1020-1034. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li X, Liu Y, Ren K, Xu R, Xu K (2011) Findings of bile flow artifacts on MR cholangiopancreatography. Chinese Journal of Radiology 45 (9):850-853

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sugita R, Sugimura E, Itoh M, Ohisa T, Takahashi S, Fujita N (2003) Pseudolesion of the bile duct caused by flow effect: a diagnostic pitfall of MR cholangiopancreatography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180 (2):467-471. doi:https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Morita S, Ueno E, Saito N, Suzuki K, Machida H, Fujimura M, Maruyama K, Onodera Y, Watanabe K, Suzuki T, Ohnishi T, Imura C, Mitsuhashi N (2008) Frequency of common bile duct motion artifacts caused by inferior vena cava pulsation on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Magn Reson Med Sci 7 (1):31-36. doi:https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.7.31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watanabe Y, Dohke M, Ishimori T, Amoh Y, Okumura A, Oda K, Hayashi T, Hiyama A, Dodo Y (2000) Pseudo-obstruction of the extrahepatic bile duct due to artifact from arterial pulsatile compression: a diagnostic pitfall of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 214 (3):856-860. doi:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr09856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Phisalprapa P, Prachayakul V (2013) Ascariasis as an unexpected cause of acute pancreatitis with cholangitis: a rare case report from urban area. JOP 14 (1):88-91. doi:https://doi.org/10.6092/1590-8577/1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yu M, Huang B, Lin Y, Nie Y, Zhou Z, Liu S, Hou B (2019) Acute obstructive cholangitis due to fishbone in the common bile duct: a case report and review of the literature. BMC Gastroenterology 19 (1):177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-019-1088-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, 510 S Kingshighway Blvd, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Malak Itani & Anup S. Shetty

  2. Department of Radiology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA

    Neeraj Lalwani

  3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Mark A. Anderson

  4. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ, 85724, USA

    Hina Arif-Tiwari

  5. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Raj Mohan Paspulati

Authors
  1. Malak Itani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neeraj Lalwani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark A. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hina Arif-Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raj Mohan Paspulati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anup S. Shetty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malak Itani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Itani, M., Lalwani, N., Anderson, M.A. et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: pitfalls in interpretation. Abdom Radiol 48, 91–105 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03323-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03323-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation