RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES:Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) has a two-fold higher T1 relaxivity compared with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) and can be used for both dynamic and delayed liver MRI. This intraindividual, crossover study was conducted to compare 0.05 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA with 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA for liver MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients underwent two identical MR examinations separated by >or= 72 hours. Precontrast T1-FLASH-2D and T2-TSE sequences and postcontrastT1-FLASH-2D sequences were acquired during the dynamic and delayed (1-2 hours) phases after each contrast injection. Images were evaluated on-site by two independent, blinded off-site readers in terms of confidence for lesion detection, lesion number, character and diagnosis, enhancement pattern, lesion-to-liver contrast, and benefit of dynamic and delayed scans. Additional on-site evaluation was performed of the overall diagnostic value of each agent. RESULTS:Superior diagnostic confidence was noted by on-site investigators and off-site assessors 1 and 2 for 6, 4 and 2 patients with Gd-BOPTA, and for 3, 1 and 2 patients with Gd-DTPA, respectively. No consistent differences were noted for other parameters on dynamic phase images whereas greater lesion-to-liver contrast was noted for more patients on delayed images after Gd-BOPTA. More correct diagnoses of histologically confirmed lesions (n = 26) were made with the complete Gd-BOPTA image set than with the complete Gd-DTPA set (reader 1: 68% vs. 59%; reader 2: 78% vs. 68%). The overall diagnostic value was considered superior after Gd-BOPTA in seven patients and after Gd-DTPA in one patient. CONCLUSION: The additional diagnostic information on delayed imaging, combined with the possibility to use a lower overall dose to obtain similar diagnostic information on dynamic imaging, offers a distinct clinical advantage for Gd-BOPTA for liver MRI.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES:Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) has a two-fold higher T1 relaxivity compared with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Gd-DTPA) and can be used for both dynamic and delayed liver MRI. This intraindividual, crossover study was conducted to compare 0.05 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA with 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA for liver MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients underwent two identical MR examinations separated by >or= 72 hours. Precontrast T1-FLASH-2D and T2-TSE sequences and postcontrast T1-FLASH-2D sequences were acquired during the dynamic and delayed (1-2 hours) phases after each contrast injection. Images were evaluated on-site by two independent, blinded off-site readers in terms of confidence for lesion detection, lesion number, character and diagnosis, enhancement pattern, lesion-to-liver contrast, and benefit of dynamic and delayed scans. Additional on-site evaluation was performed of the overall diagnostic value of each agent. RESULTS: Superior diagnostic confidence was noted by on-site investigators and off-site assessors 1 and 2 for 6, 4 and 2 patients with Gd-BOPTA, and for 3, 1 and 2 patients with Gd-DTPA, respectively. No consistent differences were noted for other parameters on dynamic phase images whereas greater lesion-to-liver contrast was noted for more patients on delayed images after Gd-BOPTA. More correct diagnoses of histologically confirmed lesions (n = 26) were made with the complete Gd-BOPTA image set than with the complete Gd-DTPA set (reader 1: 68% vs. 59%; reader 2: 78% vs. 68%). The overall diagnostic value was considered superior after Gd-BOPTA in seven patients and after Gd-DTPA in one patient. CONCLUSION: The additional diagnostic information on delayed imaging, combined with the possibility to use a lower overall dose to obtain similar diagnostic information on dynamic imaging, offers a distinct clinical advantage for Gd-BOPTA for liver MRI.
Authors: Diego R Martin; Saravanan K Krishnamoorthy; Bobby Kalb; Khalil N Salman; Puneet Sharma; John D Carew; Phillip A Martin; Arlene B Chapman; Gaye L Ray; Christian P Larsen; Thomas C Pearson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: H A Rowley; G Scialfa; P-y Gao; J A Maldjian; D Hassell; M J Kuhn; F J Wippold; M Gallucci; B C Bowen; I M Schmalfuss; J Ruscalleda; S Bastianello; C Colosimo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-07-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Yanjun Li; X Li; D Li; J Lu; X Xing; F Yan; Yuan Li; X Wang; R Iezzi; F De Cobelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Colosimo; M V Knopp; X Barreau; E Gérardin; M A Kirchin; F Guézénoc; K P Lodemann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Philip Chang; Elise Saddleton; Anne E Laumann; Brenda Schmitz; Dennis P West; Steven M Belknap; Sudharshan Parthasarathy; Beatrice J Edwards; June M McKoy; Frank H Miller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 3.173