Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for magnetic resonance perfusion in normal brain and intracranial tumors at 3 tesla

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 521-530

  Giesel, Frederik L ^a,b,c   Mehndiratta, Amit ^a,d   Risse, Frank ^a   Rius, Maria ^a   Zechmann, Christian M ^a   Von Tengg Kobligk, Hendrik ^a   Gerigk, Lars ^a   Kauczor, Hans Ulrich ^a   Politi, Maria ^a,e   Essig, Marco ^a   Griffiths, Paul D ^b   Wilkinson, Iain D ^b  

^a GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^d INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (India)

^e SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

DSC MRI; Gadobutrol; Gd DTPA; Gray matter; Perfusion MRI; White matter

Indexed keywords

DSC-MRI; GADOBUTROL; GD-DTPA; GRAY MATTER; PERFUSION MRI; WHITE MATTER;

GADOLINIUM; MAGNETIC RESONANCE; ONCOLOGY;

TUMORS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GADOBUTROL; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN; BRAIN CIRCULATION; BRAIN MAPPING; BRAIN TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE TUMOR; NONHODGKIN LYMPHOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; VASCULARIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CEREBROVASCULAR CIRCULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LYMPHOMA, NON-HODGKIN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, NERVE TISSUE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS;

EID: 66949131763     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850902787685     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, Eulderink F, Hermans J. The value of MR imaging in monitoring the effect of chemotherapy on bone sarcomas. Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:763-9.
2. Bhujwalla ZM, Artemov D, Glockner J. Tumor angiogenesis, vascularization, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:92-103.
3. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 2001;56:607-20.
4. Hawighorst H, Libicher M, Knopp MV, Moehler T, Kauffmann GW, Kaick G. Evaluation of angiogenesis and perfusion of bone marrow lesions: role of semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:286-94.
5. Reddick WE, Taylor JS, Fletcher BD. Dynamic MR imaging (DEMRI) of microcirculation in bone sarcoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:277-85.
6. Shapeero LG, Vanel D. Imaging evaluation of the response of high-grade osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to chemotherapy with emphasis on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2000;4:137-46.
7. van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Hogendoorn PC. Preoperative evaluation and monitoring chemotherapy in patients with high-grade osteogenic and Ewing's sarcoma: review of current imaging modalities. Skeletal Radiol 1998;27:57-71.
8. Lang P, Honda G, Roberts T, Vahlensieck M, Johnston JO, Rosenau W, et al. Musculoskeletal neoplasm: perineoplastic edema versus tumor on dynamic postcontrast MR images with spatial mapping of instantaneous enhancement rates. Radiology 1995;197:831-9.
9. van der Woude HJ, Verstraete KL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J, Bloem JL. Musculoskeletal tumors: does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization? Radiology 1998;208:821-8.
10. Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M. Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging - parametric "first-pass" images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology 1994; 192:835-43.
11. Meyers PA, Gorlick R, Heller G, Casper E, Lane J, Huvos AG, et al. Intensification of preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: results of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering (T12) protocol. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2452-8.
12. Wunder JS, Paulian G, Huvos AG, Heller G, Meyers PA, Healey JH. The histological response to chemotherapy as a predictor of the oncological outcome of operative treatment of Ewing sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:1020-33.
13. de Baere T, Vanel D, Shapeero LG, Charpentier A, Terrier P, di PM. Osteosarcoma after chemotherapy: evaluation with contrast material-enhanced subtraction MR imaging. Radiology 1992;185:587-92.
14. Dyke JP, Panicek DM, Healey JH, Meyers PA, Huvos AG, Schwartz LH, et al. Osteogenic and Ewing sarcomas: estimation of necrotic fraction during induction chemotherapy with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:271-8.
15. Egmont-Petersen M, Hogendoorn PC, van der Geest RJ, Vrooman HA, van der Woude H, Janssen JP, et al. Detection of areas with viable remnant tumor in postchemotherapy patients with Ewing's sarcoma by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling. Magn Reson Imaging 2000;18:525-35.
16. Hanna SL, Parham DM, Fairclough DL, Meyer WH, Le AH, Fletcher BD. Assessment of osteosarcoma response to preoperative chemotherapy using dynamic FLASH gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance mapping. Invest Radiol 1992;27:367-73.
17. Reddick WE, Bhargava R, Taylor JS, Meyer WH, Fletcher BD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging evaluation of osteosarcoma response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995;5:689-94.
18. van der Woude HJ, Bloem JL, Verstraete KL, Taminiau AH, Nooy MA, Hogendoorn PC. Osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: value of dynamic MR imaging in detecting viable tumor before surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:593-8.
19. Huvos AG. Osteogenic sarcoma: pathological assessment of preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy. Philadelphia: WBSaunders; 1991. p. 122-8.
20. Rosen G, Caparros B, Huvos AG, Kosloff C, Nirenberg A, Cacavio A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: selection of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy based on the response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy. Cancer 1982;49: 1221-30.
21. Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A, Ritter J, Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Peters PE, et al. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology 1990;175:791-6.
22. Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Fairclough DL, Gronemeyer SA. Pediatric musculoskeletal tumors: use of dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor response to chemotherapy. Radiology 1992;184:243-8.
23. Kawai A, Sugihara S, Kunisada T, Uchida Y, Inoue H. Imaging assessment of the response of bone tumors to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;337:216-25.
24. Uhl M, Saueressig U, van Buiren M, Kontny U, Niemeyer C, Köhler G, et al. Osteosarcoma: preliminary results of in vivo assessment of tumor necrosis after chemotherapy with diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2006;41: 618-23.
25. Bonnerot V, Charpentier A, Frouin F, Kalifa C, Vanel D, Di PR. Factor analysis of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in predicting the response of osteosarcoma to chemotherapy. Invest Radiol 1992;27: 847-55.
26. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the bloodbrain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17:357-67.
27. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, Evelhoch JL, Henderson E, Knopp MV, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223-32.
28. Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS GdDTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:621-8.
29. Hoffmann U, Brix G, Knopp MV, Hess T, Lorenz WJ. Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic MR mammography. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:506-14.
30. Ongolo-Zogo P, Thiesse P, Sau J, Desuzinges C, Blay JY, Bonmartin A, et al. Assessment of osteosarcoma response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: comparative usefulness of dynamic gadolinium-enhanced spin-echo magnetic resonance imaging and technetium-99m skeletal angioscintigraphy. Eur Radiol 1999;9:907-14.
31. Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7: 91-101.
32. Baudelet C, Cron GO, Gallez B. Determination of the maturity and functionality of tumor vasculature by MRI: correlation between BOLD-MRI and DCE-MRI using P792 in experimental fibrosarcoma tumors. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:1041-9.
33. Baudelet C, Cron GO, Ansiaux R, Crokart N, DeWever J, Feron O, et al. The role of vessel maturation and vessel functionality in spontaneous fluctuations of T2*-weighted GRE signal within tumors. NMR Biomed 2006;19:69-76.
34. Reddick WE, Wang S, Xiong X, Glass JO, Wu S, Kaste SC, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of regional contrast access as an additional prognostic factor in pediatric osteosarcoma. Cancer 2001;91: 2230-7.
35. Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Vanel D, Hermans J, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, et al. Osteosarcoma: chemotherapyinduced changes at MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182: 839-44.
36. Li WW. Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathology, therapeutic targeting, and imaging. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:800-11.
37. Preda A, Wielopolski PA, Ten Hagen TL, van Vliet M, Veenland JF, Ambagtsheer G, et al. Dynamic contrastenhanced MRI using macromolecular contrast media for monitoring the response to isolated limb perfusion in experimental soft-tissue sarcomas. MAGMA 2004;17: 296-302.