OBJECTIVE: To prove that 1.0 M gadobutrol provides superior contrast enhancement and MRI image characteristics of primary and secondary brain tumours compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, thereby providing superior diagnostic information. METHODS: Brain MRI was performed in two separate examinations in patients scheduled for neurosurgery. Independent injections of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadoteridol at doses of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight were administered per patient in randomised order. Evaluation was performed in an off-site blinded read. RESULTS:Fifty-one patients in the full analysis set (FAS) were eligible for efficacy analysis and 44 for the per-protocol analysis. For the primary efficacy variable "preference in contrast enhancement for one contrast agent or the other", the rate of "gadobutrol preferred" was estimated at 0.73 (95 % confidence interval 0.61; 0.83), showing significant superiority of gadobutrol over gadoteridol. Calculated lesion-to-brain contrast and the results of all qualitative secondary efficacy variables were also in favour of gadobutrol. Keeping a sufficient time delay after contrast application proved to be essential to get optimal image quality. CONCLUSION: Compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, 1.0 M gadobutrol was proven to have significantly superior contrast enhancement characteristics in a routine MRI protocol of primary and secondary brain tumours.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To prove that 1.0 M gadobutrol provides superior contrast enhancement and MRI image characteristics of primary and secondary brain tumours compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, thereby providing superior diagnostic information. METHODS: Brain MRI was performed in two separate examinations in patients scheduled for neurosurgery. Independent injections of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadoteridol at doses of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight were administered per patient in randomised order. Evaluation was performed in an off-site blinded read. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients in the full analysis set (FAS) were eligible for efficacy analysis and 44 for the per-protocol analysis. For the primary efficacy variable "preference in contrast enhancement for one contrast agent or the other", the rate of "gadobutrol preferred" was estimated at 0.73 (95 % confidence interval 0.61; 0.83), showing significant superiority of gadobutrol over gadoteridol. Calculated lesion-to-brain contrast and the results of all qualitative secondary efficacy variables were also in favour of gadobutrol. Keeping a sufficient time delay after contrast application proved to be essential to get optimal image quality. CONCLUSION: Compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, 1.0 M gadobutrol was proven to have significantly superior contrast enhancement characteristics in a routine MRI protocol of primary and secondary brain tumours.
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Bernd Tombach; Christoph Bremer; Peter Reimer; Fritz Matzkies; Roland M Schaefer; Wolfgang Ebert; Viviane Geens; Jeffrey Eisele; Walter Heindel Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tobias Engelhorn; Marc A Schwarz; Ilker Y Eyupoglu; Stephan P Kloska; Tobias Struffert; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-11-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Bernd Tombach; Klaus Bohndorf; Wolfgang Brodtrager; Claus D Claussen; Christoph Düber; Michael Galanski; Eckhardt Grabbe; Giacomo Gortenuti; Michael Kuhn; Walter Gross-Fengels; Renate Hammerstingl; Brigitte Happel; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Gregor Jung; Thomas Kittner; Roberto Lagalla; Philipp Lengsfeld; Reinhard Loose; Raymond H G Oyen; Pietro Pavlica; Christiane Pering; Roberto Pozzi-Mucelli; Thorsten Persigehl; Peter Reimer; Nomdo S Renken; Götz M Richter; Ernst J Rummeny; Fritz Schäfer; Malgorzata Szczerbo-Trojanowska; Andrzej Urbanik; Thomas J Vogl; Paul Hajek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ulrike I Attenberger; Val M Runge; Carney B Jackson; Shannon Baumann; Krista Birkemeier; Henrik J Michaely; Stefan O Schoenberg; Maximilian F Reiser; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.016
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: K R Maravilla; M P Smith; J Vymazal; M Goyal; M Herman; J J Baima; R Babbel; M Vaneckova; J Žižka; C Colosimo; M Urbańczyk-Zawadzka; M Mechl; A K Bag; S Bastianello; E Bueltmann; T Hirai; T Frattini; M A Kirchin; G Pirovano Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew J Kuhn; Julia W Patriarche; Douglas Patriarche; Miles A Kirchin; Massimo Bona; Gianpaolo Pirovano Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Jessica Lohrke; Thomas Frenzel; Jan Endrikat; Filipe Caseiro Alves; Thomas M Grist; Meng Law; Jeong Min Lee; Tim Leiner; Kun-Cheng Li; Konstantin Nikolaou; Martin R Prince; Hans H Schild; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Kohki Yoshikawa; Hubertus Pietsch Journal: Adv Ther Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.845