OBJECTIVES: To compare the contrast agent effect of a full dose and half the dose of gadobenate dimeglumine in brain tumours at 7 Tesla (7 T) MR versus 3 Tesla (3T). METHODS: Ten patients with primary brain tumours or metastases were examined. Signal intensities were assessed in the lesion and normal brain. Tumour-to-brain contrast and lesion enhancement were calculated. Additionally, two independent readers subjectively graded the image quality and artefacts. RESULTS: The enhanced mean tumour-to-brain contrast and lesion enhancement were significantly higher at 7 T than at 3T for both half the dose (91.8 ± 45.8 vs. 43.9 ± 25.3 [p = 0.010], 128.1 ± 53.7 vs. 75.5 ± 32.4 [p = 0.004]) and the full dose (129.2 ± 50.9 vs. 66.6 ± 33.1 [p = 0.002], 165.4 ± 54.2 vs. 102.6 ± 45.4 [p = 0.004]). Differences between dosages at each field strength were also significant. Lesion enhancement was higher with half the dose at 7 T than with the full dose at 3T (p = .037), while the tumour-to-brain contrast was not significantly different. Subjectively, contrast enhancement, visibility, and lesion delineation were better at 7 T and with the full dose. All parameters were rated as good, at the least. CONCLUSION: Half the routine contrast agent dose at 7 T provided higher lesion enhancement than the full dose at 3T which indicates the possibility of dose reduction at 7 T. KEY POINTS: • The contrast effect of gadobenate dimeglumine was assessed at 7 T and 3T. • In brain tumours, contrast effect was higher at 7 T than at 3T. • Tumour-to-brain contrast at 7 T half dose and 3T full dose were comparable. • 7 T half dose lesion enhancement was higher than 3T full dose enhancement. • Our results indicate the possibility of contrast agent dose reduction at 7 T.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the contrast agent effect of a full dose and half the dose of gadobenate dimeglumine in brain tumours at 7 Tesla (7 T) MR versus 3 Tesla (3T). METHODS: Ten patients with primary brain tumours or metastases were examined. Signal intensities were assessed in the lesion and normal brain. Tumour-to-brain contrast and lesion enhancement were calculated. Additionally, two independent readers subjectively graded the image quality and artefacts. RESULTS: The enhanced mean tumour-to-brain contrast and lesion enhancement were significantly higher at 7 T than at 3T for both half the dose (91.8 ± 45.8 vs. 43.9 ± 25.3 [p = 0.010], 128.1 ± 53.7 vs. 75.5 ± 32.4 [p = 0.004]) and the full dose (129.2 ± 50.9 vs. 66.6 ± 33.1 [p = 0.002], 165.4 ± 54.2 vs. 102.6 ± 45.4 [p = 0.004]). Differences between dosages at each field strength were also significant. Lesion enhancement was higher with half the dose at 7 T than with the full dose at 3T (p = .037), while the tumour-to-brain contrast was not significantly different. Subjectively, contrast enhancement, visibility, and lesion delineation were better at 7 T and with the full dose. All parameters were rated as good, at the least. CONCLUSION: Half the routine contrast agent dose at 7 T provided higher lesion enhancement than the full dose at 3T which indicates the possibility of dose reduction at 7 T. KEY POINTS: • The contrast effect of gadobenate dimeglumine was assessed at 7 T and 3T. • In brain tumours, contrast effect was higher at 7 T than at 3T. • Tumour-to-brain contrast at 7 T half dose and 3T full dose were comparable. • 7 T half dose lesion enhancement was higher than 3T full dose enhancement. • Our results indicate the possibility of contrast agent dose reduction at 7 T.
Authors: V M Runge; J E Kirsch; V J Burke; A C Price; K L Nelson; G S Thomas; B L Dean; C Lee Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1992 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Iris-Melanie Nöbauer-Huhmann; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Vladimir Mlynarik; Markus Barth; Alexander Schöggl; Karl Heimberger; Christian Matula; Amura Fog; Alexandra Kaider; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Pavol Szomolanyi; Vladimír Juras; Oliver Kraff; Mark E Ladd; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 6.016
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: 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: Elisabeth Springer; Barbara Dymerska; Pedro Lima Cardoso; Simon Daniel Robinson; Christian Weisstanner; Roland Wiest; Benjamin Schmitt; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Andrea Lazik-Palm; Oliver Kraff; Stefan H G Rietsch; Mark E Ladd; Michael Kamminga; Sascha Beck; Harald H Quick; Jens M Theysohn Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2020-02-07
Authors: Stefan Herz; Maria R Stefanescu; David Lohr; Patrick Vogel; Aleksander Kosmala; Maxim Terekhov; Andreas M Weng; Jan-Peter Grunz; Thorsten A Bley; Laura M Schreiber Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Christoph Treutlein; Tobias Bäuerle; Armin M Nagel; Ali Guermazi; Arnd Kleyer; David Simon; Georg Schett; Tobias Hepp; Michael Uder; Frank W Roemer Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 2.362