BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of the number and lesion characteristics of brain metastasis is very important in GKS. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of DD gadobutrol in the detection of brain metastases compared with a DD 0.5-mol/L gadolinium contrast, gadopentetate dimeglumine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 27 patients (male to female ratio, 15:12; mean age, 57.1 years) diagnosed with brain metastasis and having undergone GKS were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent the first 3D-T1-GRE MR imaging with a DD of gadopentetate dimeglumine. The second MR imaging with a DD of gadobutrol was performed during GKS by using the same parameters used for the first scan. Two neuroradiologists counted the number of enhancing lesions on 2 consecutive MR imaging examinations and reached consensus. Lesion-brain CNR was measured from 45 lesions, and paired t test analysis was performed between DD gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol MR imaging. RESULTS: On DD gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced images, a total of 130 lesions were detected visually. With DD gadobutrol, 25 additional lesions were detected on GKS MR imaging. There was no missing lesion on DD gadobutrol MR imaging. The mean lesion-brain CNR was higher on DD gadobutrol MR imaging than on DD gadopentetate dimeglumine imaging (2.17 +/- 0.19 versus 1.90 +/- 0.26; P = .00011, paired t test, 2-tailed). Only 2 cases showed lower CNR on DD gadobutrol images: 1 with hemorrhagic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma and the other with steroid treatment after the first MR imaging. CONCLUSIONS: DD 1.0-mol/L gadobutrol provides higher lesion conspicuity and enhances lesion detection in brain metastasis compared with DD 0.5-mol/L gadolinium contrast agents.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate assessment of the number and lesion characteristics of brain metastasis is very important in GKS. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of DDgadobutrol in the detection of brain metastases compared with a DD 0.5-mol/L gadolinium contrast, gadopentetate dimeglumine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 27 patients (male to female ratio, 15:12; mean age, 57.1 years) diagnosed with brain metastasis and having undergone GKS were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent the first 3D-T1-GRE MR imaging with a DD of gadopentetate dimeglumine. The second MR imaging with a DD of gadobutrol was performed during GKS by using the same parameters used for the first scan. Two neuroradiologists counted the number of enhancing lesions on 2 consecutive MR imaging examinations and reached consensus. Lesion-brain CNR was measured from 45 lesions, and paired t test analysis was performed between DDgadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol MR imaging. RESULTS: On DDgadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced images, a total of 130 lesions were detected visually. With DDgadobutrol, 25 additional lesions were detected on GKS MR imaging. There was no missing lesion on DDgadobutrol MR imaging. The mean lesion-brain CNR was higher on DDgadobutrol MR imaging than on DDgadopentetate dimeglumine imaging (2.17 +/- 0.19 versus 1.90 +/- 0.26; P = .00011, paired t test, 2-tailed). Only 2 cases showed lower CNR on DDgadobutrol images: 1 with hemorrhagic metastasis from renal cell carcinoma and the other with steroid treatment after the first MR imaging. CONCLUSIONS:DD 1.0-mol/L gadobutrol provides higher lesion conspicuity and enhances lesion detection in brain metastasis compared with DD 0.5-mol/L gadolinium contrast agents.
Authors: C Gasperini; A Paolillo; M Rovaris; T A Yousry; R Capra; S Bastianello; M Filippi Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: H Vogler; J Platzek; G Schuhmann-Giampieri; T Frenzel; H J Weinmann; B Radüchel; W R Press Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Marco Essig; Klaus-Peter Lodemann; Martin Le-Huu; Roland Brüning; Miles Kirchin; Wolfgang Reith Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Amit Mehndiratta; Frank Risse; Maria Rius; Christian M Zechmann; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Lars Gerigk; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Maria Politi; Marco Essig; Paul D Griffiths; Iain D Wilkinson Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.990
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: 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
Authors: Timothy J Kaufmann; Marion Smits; Jerrold Boxerman; Raymond Huang; Daniel P Barboriak; Michael Weller; Caroline Chung; Christina Tsien; Paul D Brown; Lalitha Shankar; Evanthia Galanis; Elizabeth Gerstner; Martin J van den Bent; Terry C Burns; Ian F Parney; Gavin Dunn; Priscilla K Brastianos; Nancy U Lin; Patrick Y Wen; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Zabi Wardak; Alexander Augustyn; Hong Zhu; Bruce E Mickey; Louis A Whitworth; Christopher J Madden; Samuel L Barnett; Ramzi E Abdulrahman; Lucien A Nedzi; Robert D Timmerman; Kevin S Choe Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 4.130