Literature DB >> 19300099

Brain tumor enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging at 3 tesla: intraindividual comparison of two high relaxivity macromolecular contrast media with a standard extracellular gd-chelate in a rat brain tumor model.

Peter Fries1, Val M Runge, Arno Bücker, Hellmut Schürholz, Wolfgang Reith, Philippe Robert, Carney Jackson, Titus Lanz, Günther Schneider.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate lesion enhancement (LE) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) properties of P846, a new intermediate sized, high relaxivity Gd-based contrast agent at 3 Tesla in a rat brain glioma model, and to compare this contrast agent with a high relaxivity, macromolecular compound (P792), and a standard extracellular Gd-chelate (Gd-DOTA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven rats with experimental induced brain glioma were evaluated using 3 different contrast agents, with each MR examination separated by at least 24 hours. The time between injections assured sufficient clearance of the agent from the tumor, before the next examination. P792 (Gadomelitol, Guerbet, France) and P846 (a new compound from Guerbet Research) are macromolecular and high relaxivity contrast agents with no protein binding, and were compared with the extracellular agent Gd-DOTA (Dotarem, Guerbet, France). T1w gradient echo sequences (TR/TE 200 milliseconds/7.38 milliseconds, flip angle = 90 degrees , acquisition time: 1:42 minutes:sec, voxel size: 0.2 x 0.2 x 2.0 mm, FOV = 40 mm, acquisition matrix: 256 x 256) were acquired before and at 5 consecutive time points after each intravenous contrast injection in the identical slice orientation, using a dedicated 4-channel head array animal coil. The order of contrast media injection was randomized, with however Gd-DOTA used either as the first or second contrast agent. Contrast agent dose was adjusted to compensate for the different T1 relaxivities of the 3 agents. Signal-to-noise ratio, CNR, and LE were evaluated using region-of-interest analysis. A veterinary histopathologist confirmed the presence of a glioma in each subject, after completion of the imaging study.
RESULTS: P792 showed significantly less LE as compared with Gd-DOTA within the first 7 minutes after contrast agent injection (P < 0.05) with, however, reaching comparable LE values at 9 minutes after injection (P = 0.07). However, P792 provided significantly less CNR as compared with Gd-DOTA (P < 0.05) for all examination time points. P846 provided comparable but persistent LE as compared with Gd-DOTA (P < 0.05) and demonstrated significantly greater LE and CNR when compared with P792 (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences between CNR values for Gd-DOTA and P846 were noted for all examination time points (P < 0.05), with P846 administered at one-fourth the dose as compared with Gd-DOTA.
CONCLUSION: The intravascular contrast medium P792 showed significantly less LE and CNR in comparison to Gd-DOTA and P846, suggesting that it does not show marked extravasation from tumor neocapillaries and does not significantly cross the disrupted blood brain-barrier in this rat glioma model. In distinction, P846 provides comparable enhancement properties at a field strength of 3 Tesla to the extracellular contrast agent Gd-DOTA, using the adjusted dose, suggesting that it crosses the disrupted blood-brain-barrier and tumor capillaries, most likely based on the decreased molecular weight as compared with P792. At the same time, the high relaxivity of this compound allows for decreasing the injected gadolinium dose by a factor of 4 whereas providing comparable enhancement properties when compared with a standard extracellular Gd-chelate (Gd-DOTA) at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19300099     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31819817ff

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


  7 in total

1.  A quantitative comparison of the influence of individual versus population-derived vascular input functions on dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI in small animals.

Authors:  Mary E Loveless; Jane Halliday; Carsten Liess; Lei Xu; Richard D Dortch; Jennifer Whisenant; John C Waterton; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Dynamic study of blood-brain barrier closure after its disruption using ultrasound: a quantitative analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Marty; Benoit Larrat; Maxime Van Landeghem; Caroline Robic; Philippe Robert; Marc Port; Denis Le Bihan; Mathieu Pernot; Mickael Tanter; Franck Lethimonnier; Sébastien Mériaux
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 3.  High-relaxivity contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance neuroimaging: a review.

Authors:  Frederik L Giesel; Amit Mehndiratta; Marco Essig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats: Gadofluorine P and Gd-DOTA.

Authors:  Hye Rim Cho; Youkyung Lee; Philip Doble; David Bishop; Dominic Hare; Young-Jae Kim; Kwang Gi Kim; Hye Seung Jung; Kyong Soo Park; Seung Hong Choi; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance cancer imaging.

Authors:  Zhuxian Zhou; Zheng-Rong Lu
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2012-10-09

6.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI Using a Macromolecular MR Contrast Agent (P792): Evaluation of Antivascular Drug Effect in a Rabbit VX2 Liver Tumor Model.

Authors:  Hee Sun Park; Joon Koo Han; Jeong Min Lee; Young Il Kim; Sungmin Woo; Jung Hwan Yoon; Jin-Young Choi; Byung Ihn Choi
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  A new ex vivo method to evaluate the performance of candidate MRI contrast agents: a proof-of-concept study.

Authors:  Ana Paula Candiota; Milena Acosta; Rui Vasco Simões; Teresa Delgado-Goñi; Silvia Lope-Piedrafita; Ainhoa Irure; Marco Marradi; Oscar Bomati-Miguel; Nuria Miguel-Sancho; Ibane Abasolo; Simó Schwartz; Jesús Santamaria; Soledad Penadés; Carles Arús
Journal:  J Nanobiotechnology       Date:  2014-04-05       Impact factor: 10.435

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.