OBJECTIVE: Two macrocyclic extracellular contrast agents, one-molar neutral gadobutrol and ionic gadoterate meglumine, were compared to determine the overall preference for one or the other in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, intra-individually controlled, comparison study with a corresponding blinded read. Efficacy analysis was based on 136 patients who underwent identical MRI examinations: group A first received 1.0M gadobutrol followed by 0.5M gadoterate meglumine 48 h to 7 days later; group B had a reversed administration order. Three independent blinded readers assessed off-site their overall diagnostic preference (primary efficacy parameter) based on a matched pairs approach. RESULTS: Superiority of gadobutrol over gadoterate meglumine was demonstrated for the qualitative assessment of overall preference across all readers by a statistically significant difference between both contrast agents for this primary endpoint. Preferences in lesion enhancement (secondary endpoint) were also found significantly in favor of gadobutrol. For preference in lesion delineation from surrounding tissue/edema and for internal structure only a trend towards a higher proportion for gadobutrol was found (except for internal structure reported by one reader, which showed a result of statistical significance). Lesion contrast and relative lesion enhancement (quantitative parameters) were statistically significantly higher for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI of neoplastic brain lesions at a dose of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight, assessed in a standardized off-site blinded reading, results in a significantly higher qualitative and quantitative preference for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Two macrocyclic extracellular contrast agents, one-molar neutral gadobutrol and ionic gadoterate meglumine, were compared to determine the overall preference for one or the other in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, intra-individually controlled, comparison study with a corresponding blinded read. Efficacy analysis was based on 136 patients who underwent identical MRI examinations: group A first received 1.0M gadobutrol followed by 0.5M gadoterate meglumine 48 h to 7 days later; group B had a reversed administration order. Three independent blinded readers assessed off-site their overall diagnostic preference (primary efficacy parameter) based on a matched pairs approach. RESULTS: Superiority of gadobutrol over gadoterate meglumine was demonstrated for the qualitative assessment of overall preference across all readers by a statistically significant difference between both contrast agents for this primary endpoint. Preferences in lesion enhancement (secondary endpoint) were also found significantly in favor of gadobutrol. For preference in lesion delineation from surrounding tissue/edema and for internal structure only a trend towards a higher proportion for gadobutrol was found (except for internal structure reported by one reader, which showed a result of statistical significance). Lesion contrast and relative lesion enhancement (quantitative parameters) were statistically significantly higher for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI of neoplastic brain lesions at a dose of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight, assessed in a standardized off-site blinded reading, results in a significantly higher qualitative and quantitative preference for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine.
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 R Maravilla; D San-Juan; S J Kim; G Elizondo-Riojas; J R Fink; W Escobar; A Bag; D R Roberts; J Hao; C Pitrou; A J Tsiouris; E Herskovits; J B Fiebach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-06-29 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: M Vaneckova; M Herman; M P Smith; M Mechl; K R Maravilla; J Weichet; M V Spampinato; J Žižka; F J Wippold; J J Baima; R Babbel; E Bültmann; R Y Huang; J-H Buhk; A Bonafé; C Colosimo; S Lui; M A Kirchin; N Shen; G Pirovano; A Spinazzi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 3.825
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