Literature DB >> 19169143

Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in five hundred seventy-two patients with known or suspected liver lesions: results of a multicenter, double-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase-III trial.

Renate Hammerstingl1, Gerhard Adam, Juan-Ramon Ayuso, Bernard Van Beers, Giuseppe Belfiore, Marie-France Bellin, Georg Bongartz, Olivier Ernst, Bernd Frericks, Gianmarco Giuseppetti, Gertrud Heinz-Peer, Andrea Laghi, Julio Martin, Christiane Pering, Peter Reimer, Götz-Martin Richter, Frank W Roemer, Fritz K W Schäfer, Valérie Vilgrain, Thomas J Vogl, Dominik Weishaupt, Alexander Wall, Christoph J Zech, Bernd Tombach.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) of 1.0 M gadobutrol versus 0.5 M gadopentetate for the classification of lesions as either benign or malignant in patients with known or suspected liver lesions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multicenter, phase-III, randomized, interindividually controlled comparison study with blinded reader evaluation was performed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of a bolus injection of 1.0 M gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M gadopentetate at a dose of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg BW. The imaging protocol included a dynamic 3D-evaluation, static conventional, and fat saturated T1-weighted sequences. MR datasets were evaluated by 3 independent radiologists. The standard of reference was defined by an independent truth panel (radiologist or hepatologist). The safety evaluation included adverse events, vital signs, and physical examination.
RESULTS: A total of 497 of 572 patients were eligible for the final efficacy analysis. Noninferiority of gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the classification of liver lesions was demonstrated on the basis of diagnostic accuracy determined by the on-site investigators (-0.098, 0.021) as well as for the average reader of the blinded evaluation (-0.096, 0.014) (95% confidence interval), compared with the predefined standard of reference. Very similar increases in sensitivity (ranging from approximately 10% to approximately 55%) and specificity (ranging from approximately 1% to approximately 18%) compared with precontrast MRI were also observed for the 2 contrast agent groups, with maximum differences of 4%.Very similar, low rates of adverse events were recorded for each of the 2 groups. No clinically relevant changes in vital signs or the results of the physical examination were observed in any patient.
CONCLUSION: This study documents evidence for the noninferiority of a single i.v. bolus injection of 1.0 M gadobutrol (0.1 mmol/kg body weight) to 0.5 M gadopentetate (0.1 mmol/kg body weight) in the diagnostic assessment of liver lesions with contrast-enhanced MRI. The known excellent safety profile of gadobutrol was confirmed in this clinical trial and is similar to that of gadopentetate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19169143     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318198a0ae

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  9 in total

Review 1.  Gadobutrol: a review of its use for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in adults and children.

Authors:  Lesley J Scott
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.859

2.  Intra-individual, randomised comparison of the MRI contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate in imaging the distal lower limb of patients with known or suspected osteomyelitis, evaluated in an off-site blinded read.

Authors:  Werner Pennekamp; Daniela Roggenland; Steffen Hering; Stefan Lemburg; Soeren Peters; Sabrina Sterl; Carsten Schwenke; Volkmar Nicolas
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Intra-individual, randomised comparison of the MRI contrast agents gadobutrol versus gadoteridol in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours, evaluated in a blinded read.

Authors:  M Koenig; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; M Piontek; A Hentsch; P Spangenberg; C Schwenke; A Harders; L Heuser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI.

Authors:  F Pediconi; R Kubik-Huch; B Chilla; C Schwenke; K Kinkel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  In vivo monitoring of sorafenib therapy effects on experimental prostate carcinomas using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and macromolecular contrast media.

Authors:  Clemens C Cyran; Bettina Schwarz; Philipp M Paprottka; Steven Sourbron; Jobst C von Einem; Olaf Dietrich; Rabea Hinkel; Dirk A Clevert; Christiane J Bruns; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2013-12-16       Impact factor: 3.909

6.  Safety and efficacy of gadobutrol-enhanced MRI in patients aged under 2 years-a single-center, observational study.

Authors:  Ravi Bhargava; Michelle Noga
Journal:  Magn Reson Insights       Date:  2013-02-06

7.  A Japanese, Multicenter, Open-label, Phase 3 Study to Investigate the Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol for Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Central Nervous System.

Authors:  Akio Tanaka; Tomohiko Masumoto; Haruyasu Yamada; Masayo Kurauchi; Josy Breuer
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 8.  Gadobutrol in India-A Comprehensive Review of Safety and Efficacy.

Authors:  Jan Endrikat; Nicoletta Anzalone
Journal:  Magn Reson Insights       Date:  2017-09-11

Review 9.  Gadobutrol: A Review in Contrast-Enhanced MRI and MRA.

Authors:  Lesley J Scott
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.859

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.