JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Original Article DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8149.4120
Year : 2014 | Month : Mar | Volume : 8 | Issue : 3 Full Version Page : 103 - 107

Diagnostic Accuracy of MRCP as Compared to Ultrasound/CT in Patients with Obstructive Jaundice

Amandeep Singh1, Harkaran Singh Mann2, Chuni Lal Thukral3, Neeti Rajan Singh4

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical, Sciences and Research, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, India.
2 P. G. Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Sri Amritsar, India.
3 Professor and Head, Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical, Sciences and Research, Vallah, Sri Amritsar, India.
4 Professor, Department of Surgery, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Sri Amritsar, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Amandeep Singh, 469, East Mohan Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar, Punjab-143001, India.
Phone: 09872454954,
E-mail: dr.amancs@gmail.com
Abstract

Background: The expanding spectrum of therapeutic options for patients with surgical jaundice makes it necessary for the radiologist to precisely assess the etiology, location, level and extent of disease.

Aim: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) with Ultrasound and Computed Tomography (CT) in evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice taking direct cholangiographies (ERCP and PTC), hystologic tests and anatomo-pathological findings after surgical intervention as gold standard.

Settings and Design: This prospective study included 50 patients who were referred to the radiology department with clinical features of biliary obstructive disease.

Materials and Methods: Initial ultrasonography (USG) evaluation was followed by Computed tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP);however in cases of benign pathologies where USG findings were unequivocal Computed tomography (CT )was not done to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. The results were read by radiologists blinded to other imaging findings. The characteristic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) features/ histopathological diagnosis / surgical findings (as applicable) were considered as final.

Results: Diagnostic accuracy of MRCP (98%) in the diagnosis of benign and malignant diseases was relatively high (98% and 98%) as compared to CT (82.86% and 91.43% in benign and malignant respectively) and USG (88% and 88%). In the diagnosis of benign diseases MRCP was 100% sensitive compared to ultrasound (80.77%), which was more sensitive than CT scan (54.55%).In the diagnosis of malignant diseases, MRCP was more sensitive (95.83%) as compared to CT scan (91.67%), which was more sensitive than ultrasonography (79.17%).

Conclusion: Ultrasound as a screening modality is useful to confirm or exclude biliary dilatation and to choose patients for MRCP examination. MRCP is an important non invasive imaging investigation in the pre operative evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice.

Keywords

Introduction

Obstructive jaundice is one of the most frequent and grave form of hepatobiliary disease. It can pose problems in diagnosis and management, particularly intrahepatic cholestasis [1]. Despite the technical advances, the operative modes of management of obstructive jaundice were associated with very high morbidity and mortality. Yet, during the last decade significant advances have been made in our understanding with regard to the pathogenesis, diagnosis, staging and the efficacy of management of obstructive jaundice [2]. The expanding spectrum of therapeutic options for the jaundiced patient has made it necessary for the radiologist to do more than simply discriminating between obstructive and non-obstructive jaundice. Correct choices among therapeutic options usually rest upon a precise assessment of etiology, location, level and extent of disease [3].

So, it is mandatory to determine pre-operatively the existence, the nature and site of obstruction because an ill chosen therapeutic approach can be dangerous. US has been always considered the first choice technique in the study of biliary obstructive disease, due to its accessibility, speed, ease of performance and low cost [4]. Traditional Computed Tomography (CT) scan is usually considered more accurate than US for helping determine the specific cause and level of obstruction [5]. Both ultrasound and CT scan are regarded as safe and non-invasive procedures in evaluating the status of the biliary tract. Ultrasound is used as an initial modality to confirm or exclude duct obstruction, which it does with at least 90% accuracy [6]. The range of application of CT has been partially restricted by MRCP [7]. MRCP techniques have greatly evolved, providing high resolution images of the biliary tree with short exam duration, while remaining non invasive without contrast medium injection [8].

Aim

This prospective study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) with Ultrasound and Computed Tomography (CT) in evaluation of patients with obstructive jaundice taking direct cholangiographies (ERCP and PTC), hystologic tests and anatomo-pathological findings after surgical intervention as gold standard.

Materials and Methods

The ethics committee of our institute approved this prospective study. Informed consent was taken from all patients undergoing this study. We prospectively studied 50 patients (28 females and 22 males) in the age range 14-82 years over a period starting from January 2012 to December 2013 at SGRD medical college, Amritsar. Initial USG evaluation was followed by CECT and MRI/MRCP, however in patients with Obstructive Jaundice with CBD calculi as diagnosed on USG,CT was performed if required.

Transabdominal ultrasonography was done with convex 1 to 5 Mhz probe on GE Voluson E8 followed by Contrast enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) done on multislice CT (Siemens – Erlanger, Germany) with collimation of 2 mm. However in cases of benign pathologies where USG findings were unequivocal CECT was not done to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. MRCP was done in all patients on Philips GyroscanAchieva 1.5 Tesla MRI using our standard MRCP protocol [Table/Fig-1]. The USG, CECT and MRCP results were read by radiologists blinded to other imaging findings.

Mrcp Protocol

TRTEFOVRFOVNSATHKGAP
BFFE TRA150070350-450100255
BFFE COR150070350-450100255
T1W TFE TRASHORTESTIN PHASE350-450100455
T2W SPIRRT TRA150070350-450100355
SSH MRCP RAD*8000800300100140

As the gold standard we used direct cholangiographies (ERCP and PTC), hystologic tests and anatomo-pathological findings after surgical intervention, in accordance with the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the case considered.

All patients with clinical features of biliary obstructive disease were included in the study. Following patients were excluded:

Patients less than 12 years of age.

With contraindications to MRI.

Patients with Prehepatic/Hepatic Jaundice.

Results

Of the 50 patients included in this study, benign and malignant lesions constituted 26 (52%) and 24 (48%) cases respectively. Age distribution of benign vs milgnant lesions is shown in [Table/Fig-2,3].

MRCP images shows multiple well defined filling defects(arrow), suggestive of multiple calculi, in the lumen of CBD and CHD

Benign Pathologies

The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG,CT and MRCP for different benign pathologies were as shown in [Table/Fig-4,5and6]

Showing Age Distribution of Benign V/S Malignant

Benign pathologies

ModeTotalPercentage
Choledocholithiasis1557.7
Benign stricture0519.2
Cholangitis0415.4
Other benign conditions*027.7
Total26100

*one case was diagnosed as choledochal cyst while the other showed iatrogenic stenosis as a result of laproscopic cholecystectomy.


“Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity - benign pathologies”

USGCTMRCP
DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%
Choledo-cholithiasis9693.397.1494.297596.779810097.12
Benign Stricture10040100100100100100100100

MRCP image demonstrates cystic dilatation of CHD and Proximal CBD - Choledochal cyst

Choledocholithiasis [5]

Fourteen cases confirmed to be choledocholithiasis on final diagnosis were accurately diagnosed on ultrasound. One case was falsely diagnosed as choledocholithiasis on ultrasound that later on ERCP biopsy was diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma. Ultrasound was unable to diagnose a specific cause for one case where ERCP confirmed the diagnosis to be choledocholithiasis.

Three out of four cases of choledocholithiasis in which CT scan was performed were accurately diagnosed. One case was falsely diagnosed as choledocholithiasis that later on ERCP biopsy was diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma. CT scan was unable to diagnose a specific cause for one case where ERCP confirmed the diagnosis to be choledocholithiasis.

All fifteen cases were accurately diagnosed on MRI/MRCP. One case was falsely diagnosed as choledocholithiasis on MRI/MRCP that later on ERCP biopsy was diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma.

Benign Stricture

Ultrasound accurately diagnosed benign stricture in two out of five cases (40%) included in the study.Ultrasound was unable to diagnose a specific cause for three cases where ERCP confirmed the diagnosis to be benign stricture.

CT scan was performed in two cases of benign strictures and both were accurately diagnosed.

All five cases of benign stricture in which MRI/MRCP was performed were accurately diagnosed and findings accurately correlated with the final diagnosis.

Malignant Pathologies

[7,8,9a,9band9c]

Malignant pathologies

ModeTotalPercentage
Cholangiocarcinoma0625
Periampullary carcinoma0729.2
CA head of pancreas0520.8
CA gall bladder0625
Total24100

overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity - malignant lesions

MalignantUSGCTMRCP
DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%
Periampullary ca9457.1410097.1485.71100100100100
Cholangio-carcinoma9666.6710097.1483.331009883.33100

Ultrasound image showing heterogenously hyperechoic mass lesion at the ampullary region causing dilatation of the CBD and MPD

Axial CT image showing a hypoattenuating mass lesion at the ampullary region(arrow) protuding into the lumen of duodenum

T2W SPAIR axial MR image shows a hypointense mass lesion at the ampullary region

MRCP sequence image shows dilated IHBR`s, CHD, CBD and Pancreatic duct – “Double Duct” sign

The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG, CT and MRCP for different malignant pathologies were as shown in [Table/Fig-8].

Four out of seven cases of Periampullary carcinoma in which ultrasound was performed were accurately diagnosed. Ultrasound was unable to diagnose a specific cause for three cases where final diagnosis confirmed the diagnosis to be periampullary carcinoma.

Six out of seven cases of Periampullary carcinoma in which CT scan was performed were accurately diagnosed. It was unable to diagnose a specific cause for one case where final diagnosis confirmed the diagnosis to be periampullary carcinoma.

All cases of periampullary carcinoma in which MRI/MRCP was performed were accurately diagnosed.

Four out of six cases of cholangiocarcinoma were accurately diagnosed on ultrasound. One case was falsely diagnosed as choledocholithiasis on ultrasound that later on ERCP biopsy was diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma. Ultrasound was unable to diagnose a specific cause for one case where ERCP confirmed the diagnosis to be cholangiocarcinoma.

Five out of six cases of cholangiocarcinoma were accurately diagnosed on CT scan and MRI/MRCP. one case was falsely diagnosed as choledocholithiasis that later on ERCP biopsy was diagnosed as cholangiocarcinoma.

The overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG, CT and MRCP in benign and malignant lesions observed in this study are as shown in [Table/Fig-10].

Overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG, CT and MRCP in benign and malignant lesions

MalignantUSGCTMRCP
DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%DA%SE%SP%
Benign Conditions8880.7795.8382.8654.5595.839810095.83
Malignant Conditions8879.1796.1591.4391.6790.919895.83100

Discussion

The opinion is broadly shared that US is the first choice option in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Our results for US diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are in accordance with those reported in literature. Boraschi et al., reported a specificity of over 90% [9]. In the literature, a sensitivity range of 20 to 80% is often documented [10]; these considerable differences in sensitivity among various case series are partially attributable to the impossibility of approaching the distal CBD and ampullary region in obese patients and patients with abdominal meteorism, as well as to the variability of the US technique applied.

The high sensitivity in our study presumably derives from the use of dosed compression, and to THI, which allowed for better study of the distal tract of the CBD. As described by Ortega et al., [11], harmonic imaging, by improving contrast resolution, stresses the difference between the anechoicity of the duct lumen and the surrounding soft tissues.

Todua et al., [12], has mentioned that for choledocholithiasis, CT is similar to ultrasound, with a sensitivity range of 23% to 85% and specificity of 97%. Present study showed similar results.

MRCP diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are comparable to those reported in the literature (Calvo et al., [10], Huassein et al., [13], Boraschi et al., [9] Varghese et al., [14]) where sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy respectively range between 81–100%, 84–100% and 90– 96%.

Study conducted by Al-Obaidi et al., [15] showed higher sensitivity (100%), specificity (98.5%), accuracy (98.7%) of MRI/MRCP for cases with benign stricture as compared to sensitivity of USG (44.4%) which is consistent with present study.

Andersson M et al., [16] concluded in their study that MRI with MRCP was more accurate than CT in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions in patients with suspected periampullary tumors. This is consistent with present study where MRI/MRCP showed 100 % accuracy in diagnosing cases with periampullary carcinoma.

The overall sensitivity was 66.67%, specificity was 100% and accuracy was 96% for cases with cholangiocarcinoma on ultrasound with a negative predictive value of 95.65%. The finding of our study approximate with findings by Hann et al., [17] who reported that ultrasonography detected 87% of Klatskin tumor.

Verma et al., [18] demonstrated the sensitivity and specificity of 85.3% and 88.4% on ultrasound, 84.6% and 94.2% on CT, 92.3% and 86% on MRCP for detecting the benign etiology of obstruction. Ferrari FS et al., [19] demonstrated similar findings for benign lesions in their study. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG was 78.62%,16.67% 97.29%, of CT it was 92.59%,92.3%.92.85% and of MRCP was 93.13%,90%,94% respectively.

Similar results were found in present study in which the overall sensitivity was 80.77%, specificity was 95.83% and accuracy was 88% for cases with benign conditions on ultrasound.The sensitivity for CT is inconsistent with the study conducted by Verma et al., [18]. This discrepancy could be because of the small subject size in our study. However the specificity demonstrated in their study was 94.2%, which is consistent with present findings.

Verma et al., [18] demonstrated the sensitivity and specificity of 88.4% and 85.3% on ultrasound, 94.2% and 85% on CT, 86% and 92% respectively for detecting the malignant etiology of obstruction. Ferrari FS et al., [19] demonstrated the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of USG 93.13%, 61.12%, 98.23% and 92.59%, 90.9%, 93.75% of CT and 93.13%, 90%, 94% of MRCP respectively.

Similar results were found in present study in which the overall sensitivity was 79.17%, specificity was 96.15% and accuracy was 88% for cases with malignant conditions on ultrasound.

Limitations

1) In some cases, pancreatic head and peripancreatic region were poorly visualized on ultrasonography due to bowel gas shadows.

2) Some patients were unable to hold their breath for the interval required. This compromised the quality of the 3D MRCP sequence in these cases.

Recommendations

Ultrasound as a screening modality is useful to confirm or exclude biliary dilatation and to choose patients for MRCP examination. It accurately demarcates the level of obstruction and therefore influences clinician’s diagnosis and management plans. Participating patients preferably should be in a fasting state four hours prior to the ultrasound and MRCP investigation.Ultrasound and Spiral CT have high diagnostic accuracy and specificity and along with MRCP have largely confined the role of invasive cholangiography (ERCP) to therapeutic/palliative procedures, rather than primary diagnostic tests in modern setup.

Conclusion

MRI-MRCP was superior to ultrasound and CT scan in studying both the benign and malignant lesions. Periampullary carcinoma was the commonest malignant etiology, while choledocholithiasis was the commonest benign cause. MRCP is the modality of choice for optimal characterization of the causative lesions in most of the cases of obstructive jaundice. MRI-MRCP was superior to ultrasound and CT scan in studying both the benign and malignant lesions.

References

[1]Nadkarni KM, Jahagirdar RR, Kazgi RS, Pinto AC, Bhalerao RA, Surgical Obstructive Jaundice Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 1981 24(4):33-9.  [Google Scholar]

[2]Kahnag Kim U, Roslyn Joel J, Jaundice. Maingot’s abdominal operations 2001 Vol. I & II10theditionSingaporeMcGraw Hill:315-336.:1701-2031.  [Google Scholar]

[3]Honickman SP, Mueller PR, Witternberg J, Simeone JF, Ferrucci JT, Cronan JJ, Van Sonnenberg E, Ultrasound in obstructive jaundice : prospective evaluation of site and cause Radiology May 1983 147:811-15.  [Google Scholar]

[4]Hakansson K, Ekberg O, Hakansson HO, Leander P, MR and ultrasound in screening of patients with suspected biliary tract disease Acta Radiol 2002 43:80-86.  [Google Scholar]

[5]Fleischmann D, Ringl H, Schofl R, Potzi R, Kontrus M, Henk C, Three dimensionalspiral CT cholangiography in patients with suspected obstructive biliary disease: comparisonwith endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Radiology 1996 198:861-8.  [Google Scholar]

[6]Gibson RN, Yeung E, Thompson LN, Carr DH, Benjamin IS, Blumgart LH, Allison DJ, Bile duct obstruction: Radiologic evaluation of level, cause, and tumourresectability Radiology 1986 160:43-7.  [Google Scholar]

[7]Zandrino F, Benzi L, Ferretti ML, Multislice CT cholangiography without biliary contrast agent: technique and initial clinical re- sults in the assessment of patients with biliary obstruction Eur Radiol 2002 12:1155-61.  [Google Scholar]

[8]Reinhold C, Bret PM, MR cholangiopancreatography Abdom Imaging 1996 21:105-16.  [Google Scholar]

[9]Boraschi P, Neri E, Braccini G, Choledocholithiasis: diagnostic ac- curacy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Three-year experience Magn Reson Imaging 1999 17:1245-53.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Calvo MM, Bujanda L, Calderon A, Role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected choledocholith- iasis Mayo Clin Proc 2002 77:422-28.  [Google Scholar]

[11]Ortega D, Burns PN, Hope Simpson D, Wilson SR, Tissue harmonic im- aging: is it a benefit for bile duct sonography? Am J Roentgenol 2001 176:653-59.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Todua FI, Karmazanovskii GG, Vikhorev AV, Computerized tomography of the mechanical jaundice in the involvement of the distal region of the common bile duct Vestn Roentgenol Radiol 1991 2:15-22.  [Google Scholar]

[13]Hussein FM, Alsumait B, Aman S, Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis by magnetic resonance cholangiogram Australas Radiol 2002 46:41-46.  [Google Scholar]

[14]Varghese Liddell, MRCP versus U\S in the detection of choledocholithiasis Clinical radiology 2000 55:25-35.  [Google Scholar]

[15]Safa Al-Obaidi, Mohammed RidhaAlwan, Al-Hilli, Atheer, Adnan Fadhel, The Role of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Obstructive Jaundice The Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal 2007 6(1):7-17.  [Google Scholar]

[16]Andersson M, Kostic S, Johansson M, Lundell L, Asztély M, Hellström M, MRI combined with MR cholangiopancreatography versus helical CT in the evaluation of patients with suspected periampullary tumors: a prospective comparative study Acta Radiol 2005 Feb 46(1):16-27.  [Google Scholar]

[17]Hann LE, Greatrex KV, Bach AM, Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Cholangio carcinoma at the hepatic hilus: sonographic findings American Journal of Roentgenology 1997 168:985-89.  [Google Scholar]

[18]Verma SR, Sahai SB, Gupta PK, Munshi A, Verma SC, Goyal P, Obstructive Jaundice- Aetiological Spectrum, Clinical, Biochemical And Radiological Evaluation At A Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital The Internet Journal of Tropical Medicine 2011 7(2)  [Google Scholar]

[19]Francesco SF, Federica Fantozzi, Laura Tasciotti, Francesco Vigni, Francesca Scotto, Paolo Frasci, A comparative study in 131 patients with suspected biliary obstruction Med Sci Monit 2005 11(3):8-18.  [Google Scholar]