PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a double-dose administration of gadolinium for brain metastases at 3 T in a systematic observer test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postcontrast MR images of 39 patients (total 104 metastases) were obtained by 3D T1-weighted sequences with both standard and cumulative double dose contrast administration. An observer test involving 9 radiologists (5 board-certified radiologists and 4 residents) was performed, and their diagnostic performance with the two doses was compared by means of sensitivity, false-positives, reading time, and a figure-of-merit. RESULTS: Compared to the standard dose, the double dose showed higher sensitivity (P < 0.0001), higher false-positive/case (P < 0.05), longer reading time (P < 0.05), and higher figure-of-merit (P < 0.0001). Particularly in small lesions (< 5 mm), sensitivity with the double dose (61.5%, P < 0.0001) was approximately twice as high as that with the standard dose (29.5%). Artifacts and blood vessels were the most common imaging findings resulting in false-positives. CONCLUSIONS: The double dose improved detection for metastases smaller than 5 mm at 3 T and thus resulted in better diagnostic performance of radiologists. However, a higher dose might result in prolonged reading time and increased false-positives, presumably due to increased vessel signals and frequency of flow-related artifacts.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a double-dose administration of gadolinium for brain metastases at 3 T in a systematic observer test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postcontrast MR images of 39 patients (total 104 metastases) were obtained by 3D T1-weighted sequences with both standard and cumulative double dose contrast administration. An observer test involving 9 radiologists (5 board-certified radiologists and 4 residents) was performed, and their diagnostic performance with the two doses was compared by means of sensitivity, false-positives, reading time, and a figure-of-merit. RESULTS: Compared to the standard dose, the double dose showed higher sensitivity (P < 0.0001), higher false-positive/case (P < 0.05), longer reading time (P < 0.05), and higher figure-of-merit (P < 0.0001). Particularly in small lesions (< 5 mm), sensitivity with the double dose (61.5%, P < 0.0001) was approximately twice as high as that with the standard dose (29.5%). Artifacts and blood vessels were the most common imaging findings resulting in false-positives. CONCLUSIONS: The double dose improved detection for metastases smaller than 5 mm at 3 T and thus resulted in better diagnostic performance of radiologists. However, a higher dose might result in prolonged reading time and increased false-positives, presumably due to increased vessel signals and frequency of flow-related artifacts.
Authors: E Nagao; T Yoshiura; A Hiwatashi; M Obara; K Yamashita; H Kamano; Y Takayama; K Kobayashi; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Carsten Krautmacher; Winfried A Willinek; Henriette J Tschampa; Mark Born; Frank Träber; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans J Textor; Hans H Schild; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: W T Yuh; D J Fisher; V M Runge; S W Atlas; S E Harms; K R Maravilla; N A Mayr; J E Mollman; A C Price Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Mark E Linskey; David W Andrews; Anthony L Asher; Stuart H Burri; Douglas Kondziolka; Paula D Robinson; Mario Ammirati; Charles S Cobbs; Laurie E Gaspar; Jay S Loeffler; Michael McDermott; Minesh P Mehta; Tom Mikkelsen; Jeffrey J Olson; Nina A Paleologos; Roy A Patchell; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Jawad Fares; Deepak Kanojia; Aida Rashidi; Atique U Ahmed; Irina V Balyasnikova; Maciej S Lesniak Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.225