RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compared gadopentetate dimeglumine (molecular weight, 0.5 kD), a standard contrast medium, and Gadomer-17 (apparent molecular weight, approximately 35 kD), a new, clinically applicable, large-molecular contrast medium, with respect to their microvascular characterizations of experimentally induced breast tumors at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A spectrum of breast tumors, benign through highly malignant, was induced in Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 30) by intraperitoneal administration of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU), a potent carcinogen. All animals underwent three-dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled MR imaging, with precontrast imaging and dynamic postcontrast imaging after injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg) and Gadomer-17 (0.03 mmol/kg), administered in a random order at a 24-hour interval. Several microvascular parameters were compared: the endothelial transfer coefficient (K(PS)), a measure of microvascular permeability; the fractional plasma volume (fPV), and the plasma equivalent volume. Each MR imaging parameter was correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: With Gadomer-17, the mean values for K(PS) and fPV were significantly greater in carcinomas than in fibroadenomas (P < .004 and .04, respectively). With gadopentetate dimeglumine, the mean values for fPV and PEV were significantly greater in carcinomas (P <. 004 and .02, respectively). Because of the high variability within both fibroadenoma and carcinoma groups, however, there were no significant correlations between K(PS), fPV, or PEV and histopathologic tumor grade as indicated by the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson score, for either agent. CONCLUSION: Although the K(PS) and fPV estimates obtained from dynamic MR imaging data with Gadomer-17 enhancement offer some potential for characterizing breast tumors, none of the quantitative microvascular parameters derived with either agent were significantly correlated with histopathologic tumor grade.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study compared gadopentetate dimeglumine (molecular weight, 0.5 kD), a standard contrast medium, and Gadomer-17 (apparent molecular weight, approximately 35 kD), a new, clinically applicable, large-molecular contrast medium, with respect to their microvascular characterizations of experimentally induced breast tumors at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A spectrum of breast tumors, benign through highly malignant, was induced in Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 30) by intraperitoneal administration of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU), a potent carcinogen. All animals underwent three-dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled MR imaging, with precontrast imaging and dynamic postcontrast imaging after injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg) and Gadomer-17 (0.03 mmol/kg), administered in a random order at a 24-hour interval. Several microvascular parameters were compared: the endothelial transfer coefficient (K(PS)), a measure of microvascular permeability; the fractional plasma volume (fPV), and the plasma equivalent volume. Each MR imaging parameter was correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: With Gadomer-17, the mean values for K(PS) and fPV were significantly greater in carcinomas than in fibroadenomas (P < .004 and .04, respectively). With gadopentetate dimeglumine, the mean values for fPV and PEV were significantly greater in carcinomas (P <. 004 and .02, respectively). Because of the high variability within both fibroadenoma and carcinoma groups, however, there were no significant correlations between K(PS), fPV, or PEV and histopathologic tumor grade as indicated by the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson score, for either agent. CONCLUSION: Although the K(PS) and fPV estimates obtained from dynamic MR imaging data with Gadomer-17 enhancement offer some potential for characterizing breast tumors, none of the quantitative microvascular parameters derived with either agent were significantly correlated with histopathologic tumor grade.
Authors: Hans-Juergen Raatschen; Yanjun Fu; Robert C Brasch; Hubertus Pietsch; David M Shames; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: James R Ewing; Stephen L Brown; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; Hassan Bagher-Ebadian; Ramesh Paudyal; Swayamprava Panda; Robert A Knight; Guangliang Ding; Quan Jiang; Mei Lu; Joseph D Fenstermacher Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Louisa Bokacheva; Ellen Ackerstaff; H Carl LeKaye; Kristen Zakian; Jason A Koutcher Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Per-Olof Eriksson; Emil Aaltonen; Rodrigo Petoral; Petter Lauritzson; Hideki Miyazaki; Kristian Pietras; Sven Månsson; Lennart Hansson; Peter Leander; Oskar Axelsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240