Table 2.
Visualization grading of biliary segments for both T1w MRC and T2w MRCP.
| Reader 1 | Reader 2 | p-value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2w MRCP | T1w MRC | T2w MRCP | T1w MRC | ||||||
| [n] | [%] | [n] | [%] | [n] | [%] | [n] | [%] | ||
|
| |||||||||
| CHD | p=n.s | ||||||||
| 3 | 20 | 58.8 | 20 | 60.6 | 24 | 70.6 | 26 | 76.5 | |
| 2 | 13 | 38.2 | 7 | 21.2 | 6 | 17.6 | 3 | 8.8 | |
| 1 | 1 | 2.9 | 2 | 6.1 | 2 | 5.9 | 1 | 2.9 | |
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12.1 | 2 | 5.9 | 4 | 11.8 | |
|
| |||||||||
| LHD | p=n.s | ||||||||
| 3 | 19 | 55.9 | 20 | 60.6 | 20 | 58.8 | 22 | 66.7 | |
| 2 | 9 | 26.5 | 6 | 18.2 | 5 | 14.7 | 4 | 12.1 | |
| 1 | 5 | 14.7 | 2 | 6.1 | 7 | 20.6 | 1 | 3.0 | |
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2.9 | 5 | 15.2 | 2 | 5.9 | 6 | 18.2 | |
|
| |||||||||
| RHD | p<0.03 | ||||||||
| 3 | 17 | 50.0 | 20 | 60.6 | 17 | 50.0 | 17 | 51.5 | |
| 2 | 11 | 32.4 | 6 | 18.2 | 5 | 14.7 | 6 | 18.2 | |
| 1 | 5 | 14.7 | 3 | 9.1 | 8 | 23.5 | 4 | 12.1 | |
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2.9 | 4 | 12.1 | 4 | 11.8 | 6 | 18.2 | |
|
| |||||||||
| IHD | p<0.01 | ||||||||
| 3 | 14 | 41.2 | 15 | 45.5 | 16 | 47.1 | 10 | 30.3 | |
| 2 | 10 | 29.4 | 10 | 30.3 | 7 | 20.6 | 10 | 30.3 | |
| 1 | 9 | 26.5 | 2 | 8.8 | 10 | 29.4 | 5 | 15.2 | |
|
| |||||||||
| 0 | 1 | 2.9 | 6 | 11.8 | 1 | 2.9 | 8 | 24.2 | |
CHD = common hepatic duct, LHD = left hepatic duct, RHD = right hepatic duct, and IHD = intrahepatic ducts. Given p-values compare image quality ratings of T1w-MRC versus T2w-MRCP based on pooled results of both readers and dichotomization in good to excellent quality (grades “3” and “2”) versus moderate to non-diagnostic quality (grades “1” and “0”) image grading.