OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate non-inferiority of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine by intra-individually comparing 0.1 mmol/kg body weight doses for contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prospectively evaluating lesion detection and characterisation in a multicentre trial. METHODS: Two identical breast MRI examinations were performed in 72 patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer, separated by 1-7 days. Gadobutrol 1.0 M or gadobenate 0.5 M were administered in a randomised order. Lesion detection and characterisation were performed by two independent blinded readers. Lesion tracking, which compared on-site readings and histology from surgery or biopsy, was performed by a third reader. Differences in lesion detection and characterisation were compared between the two contrast agents. RESULTS: Among 103 lesions, 96 were malignant and 7 were benign. No difference in lesion detection was identified between the contrast agents (82.33 % for gadobutrol, 81.60 % for gadobenate). Assessment of sensitivity in lesion characterisation and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems showed no difference between gadobutrol (92.63 %) and gadobenate (90.53 %). Regarding morphology, there was more non-focal enhancement for gadobutrol than for gadobenate (P = 0.0057). CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of gadobutrol compared with gadobenate was demonstrated for breast lesion detection and sensitivity in lesion characterisation in breast MRI.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate non-inferiority of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine by intra-individually comparing 0.1 mmol/kg body weight doses for contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prospectively evaluating lesion detection and characterisation in a multicentre trial. METHODS: Two identical breast MRI examinations were performed in 72 patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer, separated by 1-7 days. Gadobutrol 1.0 M or gadobenate 0.5 M were administered in a randomised order. Lesion detection and characterisation were performed by two independent blinded readers. Lesion tracking, which compared on-site readings and histology from surgery or biopsy, was performed by a third reader. Differences in lesion detection and characterisation were compared between the two contrast agents. RESULTS: Among 103 lesions, 96 were malignant and 7 were benign. No difference in lesion detection was identified between the contrast agents (82.33 % for gadobutrol, 81.60 % for gadobenate). Assessment of sensitivity in lesion characterisation and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems showed no difference between gadobutrol (92.63 %) and gadobenate (90.53 %). Regarding morphology, there was more non-focal enhancement for gadobutrol than for gadobenate (P = 0.0057). CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of gadobutrol compared with gadobenate was demonstrated for breast lesion detection and sensitivity in lesion characterisation in breast MRI.
Authors: D M Ikeda; N M Hylton; K Kinkel; M G Hochman; C K Kuhl; W A Kaiser; J C Weinreb; S F Smazal; H Degani; P Viehweg; J Barclay; M D Schnall Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Laura Martincich; Matthieu Faivre-Pierret; Christian M Zechmann; Stefano Corcione; Harrie C M van den Bosch; Wei-Jun Peng; Antonella Petrillo; Katja C Siegmann; Johannes T Heverhagen; Pietro Panizza; Hans-Björn Gehl; Felix Diekmann; Federica Pediconi; Lin Ma; Fiona J Gilbert; Francesco Sardanelli; Paolo Belli; Marco Salvatore; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner; Claudia M Weiss; Chiara Zuiani Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Michael A Jacobs; Tarek H Khalil; Ihab R Kamel; Andrew Dwyer; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jan Endrikat; Gilda Schmidt; Daniel Haverstock; Olaf Weber; Zuzana Jirakova Trnkova; Jörg Barkhausen Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2022-04-19
Authors: Sean A Woolen; Jonathan P Troost; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Akshat C Pujara; Jennifer S McDonald; Robert J McDonald; Prasad Shankar; Alana A Lewin; Amy N Melsaether; Steven M Westphal; Katherine H Patterson; Ashley Nettles; John P Welby; Parth Pradip Patel; Neud Kiros; Lisa Piccoli; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315