BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The higher relaxivity of gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide is potentially advantageous for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative lesion enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Adult patients with suggested or known brain lesions underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, one with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadodiamide. The agents were administered in randomized order separated by 3-14 days. Imaging sequences and postinjection acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, and global preference) and quantitatively for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS:One hundred thirteen of 138 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumor, metastasis, extra-axial tumor, or other (47, 27, 18, and 21 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated global preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 63 (55.8%), 77 (68.1%), and 73 (64.6%) patients, respectively, compared with 3, 2, and 3 patients for gadodiamide (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all qualitative end points and for CNR (increases of 23.3%-34.7% and 42.4%-48.9% [spin-echo and gradient-refocused echo sequences, respectively] for gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide). Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (kappa = 0.47-0.69). Significant preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all lesion subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Significantly greater diagnostic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide at an equivalent dose.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The higher relaxivity of gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide is potentially advantageous for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative lesion enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with suggested or known brain lesions underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, one with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadodiamide. The agents were administered in randomized order separated by 3-14 days. Imaging sequences and postinjection acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, and global preference) and quantitatively for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). RESULTS: One hundred thirteen of 138 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumor, metastasis, extra-axial tumor, or other (47, 27, 18, and 21 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated global preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 63 (55.8%), 77 (68.1%), and 73 (64.6%) patients, respectively, compared with 3, 2, and 3 patients for gadodiamide (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all qualitative end points and for CNR (increases of 23.3%-34.7% and 42.4%-48.9% [spin-echo and gradient-refocused echo sequences, respectively] for gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide). Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (kappa = 0.47-0.69). Significant preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all lesion subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: Significantly greater diagnostic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide at an equivalent dose.
Authors: Michael V Knopp; Val M Runge; Marco Essig; Marius Hartman; Olav Jansen; Miles A Kirchin; Albrecht Moeller; Astrid H Seeberg; Klaus-Peter Lodemann Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: V M Runge; M R Armstrong; R G Barr; B L Berger; L F Czervionke; C F Gonzalez; H H Halford; E Kanal; M J Kuhn; J M Levin; R N Low; L N Tanenbaum; A M Wang; W Wong; W T Yuh; G H Zoarski Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Matthew J Kuhn; Piero Picozzi; Joseph A Maldjian; Ilona M Schmalfuss; Kenneth R Maravilla; Brian C Bowen; Franz J Wippold; Val M Runge; Michael V Knopp; Leo J Wolansky; Lars Gustafsson; Marco Essig; Nicoletta Anzalone Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Val M Runge; Jonmenjoy Biswas; Bernd J Wintersperger; Shannon S Baumann; Carney B Jackson; Christoph U Herborn; Tushar Patel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Michael V Knopp; Frederik L Giesel; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Jannis Radeleff; Martin Requardt; Miles A Kirchin; Hans-Rainer Hentrich Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Essig; N Anzalone; S E Combs; À Dörfler; S-K Lee; P Picozzi; A Rovira; M Weller; M Law Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K-O Lövblad; N Anzalone; A Dörfler; M Essig; B Hurwitz; L Kappos; S-K Lee; M Filippi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Z Seidl; J Vymazal; M Mechl; M Goyal; M Herman; C Colosimo; M Pasowicz; R Yeung; B Paraniak-Gieszczyk; B Yemen; N Anzalone; A Citterio; G Schneider; S Bastianello; J Ruscalleda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.825