4.6 Article

Quantitative MRCP assessment of pancreatic exocrine reserve and its correlation with faecal elastase-1 in patients with chronic pancreatitis

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 117, Issue 2, Pages 282-292

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-011-0774-6

Keywords

MRCPQ; Chronic pancreatitis; Pancreatic exocrine reserve; Quantitative MR; Secretin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. This retrospective study was done to correlate a quantitative assessment of the pancreatic exocrine reserve by dynamic secretin magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCPQ) with the faecal elastase-1 (FE-1) test in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Materials and methods. Thirty-five patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic (CP) or acute recurrent (ARP) pancreatitis were enrolled. FE-1 was indicative of the pancreatic exocrine reserve. Subsequently, the patient population was subdivided into two groups according to a clinical threshold value of 200 mu g/g. All patients underwent MRCP examination during secretin administration. Duodenal filling volume was calculated on T2-weigthed rapid acquisition with relaxation enhancement (RARE) MRCP images obtained 10 min after secretin injection. Duodenal filling volumes were compared with FE-1 values. Scatter plots, Pearson correlation coefficient and the Mann-Whitney U test were performed. Results. Thirty-five paired MRCPQ-FE1 data sets were analysed. MRCPQ was significantly different (p=0.007) between patients with impaired and preserved pancreatic function; median and interquartile range (IQR) were 150.7 ml (137.3-205.5 ml; n=9) and 332.4 ml (190.6-506.9 ml; n=26). Both Pearson correlation coefficient (p<0.001) and the Mann-Whitney U test (p=0.007) were significant. Conclusions. MRCPQ significantly correlates with FE-1 values. It is possible to discriminate impaired and preserved pancreatic exocrine function using MRCPQ.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available