Evaluation shows MRCP+ improves inter-reader agreement and confidence in diagnosing high-grade strictures in PSC, suggesting better patient management.
Background: Identifying high-grade strictures (HGS) in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) relies upon subjective assessments of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Quantitative MRCP (MRCP+) provides objective evaluation of MRCP examinations, which may help make these assessments more consistent and improve patient management and selection for intervention. We evaluated the impact of MRCP+ on clinicians’ confidence in diagnosing HGS in patients with PSC. Methods: Three expert abdominal radiologists independently assessed 28 patients with PSC. Radiological reads of MRCPs were performed twice, in a random order, three weeks apart, then a third time with MRCP+. HGS presence was recorded on semi-quantitative confidence scales. The cases where readers definitively agreed on presence/absence of HGS were used to assess inter- and intra-reader agreement and confidence. Results: When using MRCP alone, high intra-reader agreement was observed in identifying HGS within both intra- and extrahepatic ducts (64.3% and 70.8%, respectively), while inter-reader agreement was significantly lower for intrahepatic ducts (42.9%) than extrahepatic ducts (66.1%) (p < 0.01). Using MRCP+ in the third read significantly improved inter-reader agreement for intrahepatic HGS detection to 67.9% versus baseline reads (p = 0.02) and was comparable with extrahepatic ducts. Reader confidence tended to increase when supplemented with MRCP+, and inter-reader variability decreased. MRCP+ metrics had good performance in identifying HGS in both extra-hepatic (AUC:0.85) and intra-hepatic ducts (AUC:0.75). Conclusions: MRCP evaluation supported by quantitative metrics tended to increase individual reader confidence and reduce inter-reader variability for detecting HGS. Our results indicate that MRCP+ might help standardize MRCP assessment and subsequent management for patients with PSC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Franklin et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: