Detection of Biliary Duct Narrowing and Choledocholithiasis: Accuracy of Portal Venous Phase Multidetector CT

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 64-detector computed tomography (CT) in the portal venous phase by using transverse images and both multiplanar and minimum intensity reformations for the detection of biliary duct narrowing and choledocholithiasis, with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: Approval from institutional review board was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study; informed consent was waived. The study included all patients (42 men, 52 women; mean age, 61 years) who underwent abdominal 64-detector CT within 2 months of MRCP and/or ERCP. All patients underwent portal venous phase intravenous contrast material–enhanced abdominal CT. Sixty-one patients underwent MRCP and 54 patients underwent ERCP (21 patients underwent both). Two radiologists, blinded to the reference standard, independently evaluated the CT images, including multiplanar and minimum intensity reformations, for biliary duct narrowing and choledocholithiasis. Standard of reference examinations were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

Results: Twenty-three (24%) of 94 patients had a biliary duct narrowing at reference examinations. For detecting biliary duct narrowing, observer 1 had a sensitivity of 78.2%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 93.4% and observer 2 had a sensitivity of 69.6%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, and NPV of 91.0%. In 18 (19%) of 94 patients, choledocholithiasis was detected at reference examinations. For detecting choledocholithiasis, observer 1 had a sensitivity of 77.8%, specificity of 96.1%, PPV of 82.4%, and NPV of 94.8% and observer 2 had a sensitivity of 72.2%, specificity of 96.1%, PPV of 81.2%, and NPV of 93.6%.

Conclusion: Portal venous phase multidetector CT images are highly specific and moderately sensitive for the detection of biliary duct narrowing and choledocholithiasis.

© RSNA, 2008

References

  • 1 Baron RL, Stanley RJ, Lee JK, et al. A prospective comparison of the evaluation of biliary obstruction using computed tomography and ultrasonography. Radiology 1982; 145: 91–98.
  • 2 Mitchell SE, Clark RA. A comparison of computed tomography and sonography in choledocholithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984; 142: 729–733.
  • 3 Wermke W, Schulz HJ. Sonographic diagnosis of bile duct calculi: results of a prospective study of 222 cases of choledocholithiasis. Ultraschall Med 1987; 8: 116–120.
  • 4 Soto JA, Alvarez O, Munera F, Velez SM, Valencia J, Ramirez N. Diagnosing bile duct stones: comparison of unenhanced helical CT, oral contrast-enhanced CT cholangiography and MR cholangiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1127–1134.
  • 5 Griffin N, Wastle ML, Dunn WK, Ryder SD, Beckingham IJ. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic retrograde cholasngiopancreatography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003; 15: 809–813.
  • 6 Canto MI, Chak A, Stellato T, Sivak MV Jr. Endoscopic ultrasonography versus cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 47: 439–448.
  • 7 Broder J, Warshauer DM. Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000–2005. Emerg Radiol 2006; 13: 25–30.
  • 8 Matin A, Bates DW, Sussman A, Ros P, Hanson R, Khorasani R. Inpatient radiology utilization: trends over the past decade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 7–11.
  • 9 Urban BA, Fishman EK. Tailored helical CT evaluation of acute abdomen. RadioGraphics 2000; 20: 725–749.
  • 10 Zandrino F, Benzi L, Ferretti ML, Ferrando R, Reggiani G, Musante F. Multislice CT cholangiography without biliary contrast agent: technique and initial clinical results in the assessment of patients with biliary obstruction. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1155–1161.
  • 11 Zandrino F, Curone P, Benzi L, Ferretti ML, Musante F. MR versus multislice CT cholangiography in evaluating patients with obstruction of the biliary tract. Abdom Imaging 2005; 30: 77–85.
  • 12 Denecke T, Degutyte E, Stelter L, et al. Minimum intensity projections of the biliary system using 16-channel multidetector computed tomography in patients with biliary obstruction: comparison with MRCP. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1719–1726.
  • 13 Rao ND, Gulati MS, Paul SB, Pande GK, Sahni P, Chattopadhyay TK. Three-dimensional helical computed tomography cholangiography with minimum intensity projection in gallbladder carcinoma patients with obstructive jaundice: comparison with magnetic resonance cholangiography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 20: 304–308.
  • 14 Campbell WL, Ferris JV, Holbert BL, Thaete FL, Baron RL. Biliary tract carcinoma complicating primary sclerosing cholangitis: evaluation with CT, cholangiography, US, and MR imaging. Radiology 1998; 207: 41–50.
  • 15 Park HS, Lee JM, Kim SH, et al. CT Differentiation of cholangiocarcinoma from periductal fibrosis in patients with hepatolithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 445–453.
  • 16 Yoon KH, Ha HK, Kim MH, et al. Biliary stricture caused by blunt abdominal trauma: clinical and radiologic features in five patients. Radiology 1998; 207: 737–741.
  • 17 Kim HC, Park SJ, Park SI, et al. Multislice CT cholangiography using thin-slab minimum intensity projection and multiplanar reformation in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary obstruction: preliminary experience. Clin Imaging 2005; 29: 46–54.
  • 18 Raptopoulos V, Prassopoulos P, Chuttani R, McNicholas MM, McKee JD, Kressel HY. Multiplanar CT pancreatography and distal cholangiography with minimum intensity projections. Radiology 1998; 207: 317–324.
  • 19 Rosch T, Meining A, Fruhmorgen S, et al. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 870–876.
  • 20 Maetani Y, Itoh K, Watanabe C, et al. MR imaging of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176(6): 1499–1507.
  • 21 Chen JH, Sun CK, Liao CS, Chua CS. Self-expandable metallic stents for malignant biliary obstruction: efficacy on proximal and distal tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 119–122.
  • 22 Rosch T, Hofrichter K, Frimberger E, et al. ERCP or EUS for tissue diagnosis of biliary strictures? a prospective comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 390–396.
  • 23 Neitlich JD, Topazian M, Smith RC, Gupta A, Burrell MI, Rosenfield AT. Detection of choledocholithiasis: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1997; 203: 753–757.
  • 24 Anderson SW, Lucey BC, Varghese JC, Soto JA. Accuracy of MDCT in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 174–180.
  • 25 Baron RL, Rohrmann CA Jr, Lee SP, Shuman WP, Teefey SA. CT evaluation of gallstones in vitro: correlation with chemical analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151: 1123–1128.
  • 26 Brakel K, Lameris JS, Nijs HG, Terpstra OT, Steen G, Blijenberg BC. Predicting gallstone composition with CT: in vivo and in vitro analysis. Radiology 1990; 174: 337–341.
  • 27 Chan WC, Joe BN, Coakley FV, et al. Gallstone detection at CT in vitro: effect of peak voltage setting. Radiology 2006; 241: 546–553.
  • 28 Miller FH, Hwang CM, Gabriel H, Goodhartz LA, Omar AJ, Parsons WG 3rd. Contrast-enhanced helical CT of choledocholithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 125–130.
  • 29 Sica GT. Bias in research studies. Radiology 2006; 238: 780–789.

Article History

Published in print: 2008