Does higher gadolinium concentration play a role in the morphologic assessment of brain tumors? Results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine (the MERIT study)

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1050-1058

  Seidl, Zdenek ^a   Vymazal, J ^b   Mechl, M ^c   Goyal, M ^d   Herman, M ^e   Colosimo, C ^f   Pasowicz, M ^g   Yeung, R ^h   Paraniak Gieszczyk, B ⁱ   Yemen, B ^j   Anzalone, N ^k   Citterio, A ^l   Schneider, G ^m   Bastianello, S ⁿ   Ruscalleda, J ^o  

^a Centrum pro lé bu obezity a metabolických onemocn ní   (Czech Republic)

^b NA HOMOLCE HOSPITAL   (Czech Republic)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BRNO   (Czech Republic)

^d Seaman Family MR Centre   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OLOMOUC   (Czech Republic)

^f Istituto di Radiologia di Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Roma   (Italy)

^g Krakowski Szpital Specjalistyczny Im Jana Pawła II   (Poland)

^h SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁱ NZOZ Slaskie Centrum Diagnostyki Obrazowej   (Poland)

^j HAMILTON HEALTH SCIENCES   (Canada)

^k SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^l OSPEDALE NIGUARDA CA GRANDA   (Italy)

^m SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

ⁿ C MONDINO NATIONAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE   (Italy)

^o HOSPITAL DE LA SANTA CREU I SANT PAU   (Spain)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; GADOBUTROL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; BRAIN METASTASIS; BRAIN TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEUROANATOMY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; AGED; BRAIN NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; CZECH REPUBLIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEGLUMINE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862570828     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3033     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Colosimo C, Ruscalleda J, Korves M, et al. Detection of intracranial metastases: a multi-center, intra-patient comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with routinely used contrast agents at equal dose. Invest Radiol 2001;36:72-81 (Pubitemid 32147853)
2. Knopp MV, Runge VM, Essig M, et al. Primary and secondary brain tumors at MR imaging: bicentric intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2004;230:55-64 (Pubitemid 37549783)
3. Colosimo C, Knopp MV, Barreau X, et al. A comparison of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DOTA for contrast-enhanced MRI of intracranial tumours. Neuroradiology 2004;46:655-65 (Pubitemid 39199524)
4. Essig M, Tartaro A, Tartaglione T, et al. Enhancing lesions of the brain: intraindividual crossover comparison of contrast enhancement after gadobenate dimeglumine versus established gadolinium comparators. Acad Radiol 2006;13:744-51
5. Maravilla KR, Maldjian JA, Schmalfuss IM, et al. Contrast enhancement of central nervous system lesions: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparative study of two MR contrast agents. Radiology 2006;240:389-400 (Pubitemid 44098634)
6. Kuhn MJ, Picozzi P, Maldjian JA, et al. Evaluation of intraaxial enhancing brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for visualization and assessment, and implications for surgical intervention. J Neurosurg 2007;106:557-66 (Pubitemid 46536450)
7. Rowley HA, Scialfa G, Gao PY, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1684-91
8. Rumboldt Z, Rowley HA, Steinberg F, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of brain tumors at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:760-67
9. MultiHance. Summary of product characteristics. http://www.medicines. org.uk/emc/medicine/6132/SPC/multihance/#INDICATIONS. Accessed February 3, 2011
10. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:213-21. Erratum in Invest Radiol 2006;41:859 (Pubitemid 44406181)
11. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, et al. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715-24 (Pubitemid 41546838)
12. Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM, et al. Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins: a new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1997;32:780-96 (Pubitemid 28053510)
13. Giesel FL, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Wilkinson ID, et al. Influence of human serum albumin on longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates (R1 and R2) of magnetic resonance contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2006;41:222-28 (Pubitemid 44406182)
14. Gadavist (gadobutrol) injection. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; March 2011. http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=40544. Accessed February 3, 2012
15. Anzalone N, Gerevini S, Scotti R, et al. Detection of cerebral metastases on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Acta Radiol 2009;50:933-40
16. Kim ES, Chang JH, Choi HS, et al. Diagnostic yield of double-dose gadobutrol in the detection of brain metastasis: intraindividual comparison with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1055-58
17. Katakami N, Inaba Y, Sugata S, et al. Magnetic resonance evaluation of brain metastases from systemic malignances with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 m compared with gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase II/III study in patients with known or suspected brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2011; 46:411-18
18. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1981
19. Kirchin MA, Runge VM. Contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: safety update. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2003;14:426-35 (Pubitemid 37521732)
20. Laurent S, Elst LV, Muller RN. Comparative study of the physicochemical properties of six clinical low molecular weight gadolinium contrast agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2006;1:128-37
21. Yuh WT, Fisher DJ, Engelken JD, et al. MR evaluation of CNS tumors: dose comparison study with gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadoteridol. Radiology 1991;180:485-91
22. Schneider G, Kirchin MA, Pirovano G, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial metastases: effect of dose on lesion detection and delineation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14:525-39 (Pubitemid 33029538)
23. Wollanka H, Weidenmaier W, Giersig C. NSF after Gadovist exposure: a case report and hypothesis of NSF development. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:3882-84. Epub 2009 Sep 19
24. Elmholdt TR, Jørgensen B, Ramsing M, et al. Two cases of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis after exposure to the macrocyclic compound gadobutrol. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;3:285-87
25. Anzalone N. Comparative studies of different gadolinium agents in brain tumors: differences between gadolinium chelates and their possible influence on imaging features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:981-82
26. Achenbach M, Figiel JH, Burbelko M, et al. Prospective comparison of image quality and diagnostic accuracy of 0.5 molar gadobenate dimeglumine and 1.0 molar gadobutrol in contrast-enhanced run-off magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremities. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;32:1166-71
27. Grazioli L, Morana G, Kirchin MA, et al. Accurate differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia from hepatic adenoma at gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging: prospective study. Radiology 2005;236:166-77 (Pubitemid 40853309)
28. Morana G, Grazioli L, Kirchin MA, et al. Solid hypervascular liver lesions: accurate identification of true benign lesions on enhanced dynamic and hepatobiliary phase magnetic resonance imaging after gadobenate dimeglumine administration. Invest Radiol 2011;46:225-39
29. de Haën C, Cabrini M, Akhnana L, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5M solution for injection (MultiHance): pharmaceutical formulation and physicochemical properties of a new magnetic resonance imaging contrast medium. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23(suppl 1):S161-68
30. Banci L, Bertini I, Luchinat C. Nuclear and Electron Relaxation. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft; 1991:138
31. Bültmann E, Erb G, Kirchin MA, et al. Intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic vessels at 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2008;43:695-702
32. Vogler H, Platzek J, Schuhmann-Giampieri G, et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of gadobutrol: a new, neutral, extracellular contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 1995;21:1-10
33. Tombach B, Heindel W. Value of 1.0-M gadolinium chelates: review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1550-56 (Pubitemid 36940236)
34. Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine forMRangiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology 2010;255:988-1000
35. Schneider G, Pasowicz M, Vymazal J, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium for MR angiography of the renal arteries: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:476-85
36. Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann CM, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast MR imaging (DETECT trial). Radiology 2011;258:396-408
37. Heiland S, Erb G, Ziegler S, et al. Where contrast agent concentration really matters: a comparison of CT and MRI. Invest Radiol 2010;45:529-37