PURPOSE: Although studies obtained with triple-dose contrast administration can show more brain metastases than those obtained with single-dose contrast material in patients with multiple metastases, such studies are costly and of limited clinical benefit. Since most patients who undergo screening have negative findings or a single metastasis, this study was performed to compare the clinical utility of single-dose versus triple-dose contrast administration in this large group of patients who could benefit from the possible increased sensitivity in lesion detection. METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients with negative or equivocal findings or a solitary metastasis on single-dose contrast-enhanced MR images underwent triple-dose studies. Findings were compared with a standard of reference composed of panel review and long-term follow-up. Further analysis was performed by comparing results with those obtained by two blinded readers. RESULTS: In all 70 negative single-dose studies, the triple-dose studies depicted no additional metastases in terms of the standard of reference. No statistically significant difference was seen between the results of the single- and triple-dose studies. For 10 equivocal single-dose studies, the triple-dose study helped clarify the presence or absence of metastases in 50% of the cases. In 12 patients with a solitary metastasis seen on the single-dose study, the triple-dose study depicted additional metastases in 25% of the cases. In the results of one of the two blinded readers, use of triple-dose contrast led to a statistical difference by decreasing the number of equivocal readings but at the expense of increasing the number of false-positive readings. CONCLUSION: Routine triple-dose contrast administration in all cases of suspected brain metastasis is not helpful. On the basis of our investigation, we conclude that the use of triple-dose contrast material is beneficial in selected cases with equivocal findings or solitary metastasis, although with the disadvantage of increasing the number of false-positive results.
PURPOSE: Although studies obtained with triple-dose contrast administration can show more brain metastases than those obtained with single-dose contrast material in patients with multiple metastases, such studies are costly and of limited clinical benefit. Since most patients who undergo screening have negative findings or a single metastasis, this study was performed to compare the clinical utility of single-dose versus triple-dose contrast administration in this large group of patients who could benefit from the possible increased sensitivity in lesion detection. METHODS: Ninety-two consecutive patients with negative or equivocal findings or a solitary metastasis on single-dose contrast-enhanced MR images underwent triple-dose studies. Findings were compared with a standard of reference composed of panel review and long-term follow-up. Further analysis was performed by comparing results with those obtained by two blinded readers. RESULTS: In all 70 negative single-dose studies, the triple-dose studies depicted no additional metastases in terms of the standard of reference. No statistically significant difference was seen between the results of the single- and triple-dose studies. For 10 equivocal single-dose studies, the triple-dose study helped clarify the presence or absence of metastases in 50% of the cases. In 12 patients with a solitary metastasis seen on the single-dose study, the triple-dose study depicted additional metastases in 25% of the cases. In the results of one of the two blinded readers, use of triple-dose contrast led to a statistical difference by decreasing the number of equivocal readings but at the expense of increasing the number of false-positive readings. CONCLUSION: Routine triple-dose contrast administration in all cases of suspected brain metastasis is not helpful. On the basis of our investigation, we conclude that the use of triple-dose contrast material is beneficial in selected cases with equivocal findings or solitary metastasis, although with the disadvantage of increasing the number of false-positive results.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; Y Ge; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; K Yoshizumi; M Kitajima; M Takahashi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Bradley J Erickson; Norbert G Campeau; Shawn A Schreiner; Jan C Buckner; Brian P O'Neill; Judith R O'Fallon Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.130
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: Or Cohen-Inbar; Zhiyuan Xu; Blair Dodson; Tanvir Rizvi; Christopher R Durst; Sugoto Mukherjee; Jason P Sheehan Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: C Colosimo; M V Knopp; X Barreau; E Gérardin; M A Kirchin; F Guézénoc; K P Lodemann Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.804