nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.03.2015 | Breast

Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging

verfasst von: Eva M. Fallenberg, Diane M. Renz, Bettina Karle, Carsten Schwenke, Barbara Ingod-Heppner, Angela Reles, Florian J. Engelken, Alexander Huppertz, Bernd Hamm, Matthias Taupitz

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare intraindividually two macrocyclic contrast agents - gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA) - for dynamic and quantitative assessment of relative enhancement (RE) in benign and malignant breast lesions.

Methods

This was an ethically approved, prospective, single-centre, randomized, crossover study in 52 women with suspected breast lesions referred for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Each patient underwent one examination with gadobutrol and one with Gd-DOTA (0.1 mmol/kg BW) on a 1.5 T system 1 – 7 days apart. Dynamic, T1-weighted, 3D gradient echo sequences were acquired under identical conditions. Quantitative evaluation with at least three regions of interest (ROI) per lesion was performed. Primary endpoint was RE during the initial postcontrast phase after the first and second dynamic acquisition, and peak RE. All lesions were histologically proven; differences between the examinations were evaluated.

Results

Forty-five patients with a total of 11 benign and 34 malignant lesions were assessed. Mean RE was significantly higher for gadobutrol than Gd-DOTA (p < 0.0001). Gadobutrol showed significantly less washout (64.4 %) than Gd-DOTA (75.4 %) in malignant lesions (p = 0.048)

Conclusions

Gadobutrol has higher RE values compared with Gd-DOTA, whereas Gd-DOTA shows more marked washout in malignant lesions. This might improve the detection of breast lesions and influence the specificity of breast MRI-imaging.

Key Points

• Contrast agents differ in terms of peak enhancement and postinitial contrast behaviour.

• Gadobutrol results in greater peak RE in lesions, likely due to relaxivity.

• Gd-DOTA shows more pronounced washout in postinitial contrast behaviour of malignant lesions.

• Further investigations of the differences among GD-CM may improve sensitivity and specificity.

Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110CrossRefPubMed

Montemurro F, Martincich L, Sarotto I et al (2007) Relationship between DCE-MRI morphological and functional features and histopathological characteristics of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 17:1490–1497CrossRefPubMed

Morris EA, Harms S (2004) ACR practice guideline for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. American College of Radiology, Reston (VA)

Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler CH (1997) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 24:94–108CrossRefPubMed

Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD et al (2007) Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 244:381–388CrossRefPubMed

Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89CrossRefPubMed

Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209–1216CrossRefPubMed

Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Dijckmans L et al (2004) MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol 14:809–816CrossRefPubMed

Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

10.

Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Sherry RM, Wright JC (1993) Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 11:617–620CrossRefPubMed

11.

Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H et al (1986) MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10:199–204CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kaiser WA, Zeitler E (1989) MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary Observations. Radiology 170:681–686CrossRefPubMed

13.

Stack JP, Redmond OM, Codd MB, Dervan PA, Ennis JT (1990) Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles. Radiology 174:491–494CrossRefPubMed

14.

Weinmann HJ, Laniado M, Mutzel W (1984) Pharmacokinetics of GdDTPA/dimeglumine after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR 16:167–172PubMed

15.

Allard M, Doucet D, Kien P, Bonnemain B, Caille JM (1988) Experimental study of DOTA-gadolinium. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic properties. Investig Radiol 23:S271–S274CrossRef

16.

Le Mignon MM, Chambon C, Warrington S, Davies R, Bonnemain B (1990) Gd-DOTA. Pharmacokinetics and tolerability after intravenous injection into healthy volunteers. Investig Radiol 25:933–937CrossRef

17.

Bourasset F, Dencausse A, Bourrinet P, Ducret M, Corot C (2001) Comparison of plasma and peritoneal concentrations of various categories of MRI blood pool agents in a murine experimental pharmacokinetic model. MAGMA 12:82–87CrossRefPubMed

18.

Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H et al (2006) Relaxivity of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (Magnevist), Gadobutrol (Gadovist), and Gadobenate Dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Investig Radiol 41:213–221CrossRef

19.

Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann H-J (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Investig Radiol 40:715–724CrossRef

20.

Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Morelli JN, Williams J, Jackson CB, Michaely HJ (2010) Evaluation of gadobutrol, a macrocyclic, nonionic gadolinium chelate in a brain glioma model: comparison with gadoterate meglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine at 1.5T, combined with an assessment of field strength dependence, specifically 1.5 versus 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:549–555CrossRefPubMed

21.

Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F et al (2003) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:663–676CrossRefPubMed

22.

Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann CM et al (2011) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial). Radiology 258:396–408CrossRefPubMed

23.

Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1339–1346CrossRefPubMed

24.

Gillis A, Gray M, Burstein D (2002) Relaxivity and diffusion of gadolinium agents in cartilage. Magn Reson Med 48:1068–1071CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wiener E, Woertler K, Weirich G, Rummeny EJ, Settles M (2007) Contrast enhanced cartilage imaging: Comparison of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents. Eur J Radiol 63:110–119CrossRefPubMed

26.

Marotta M, D'Armiento FP, Martino G et al (1985) Glycosaminoglycans in human breast cancer: morphological and biochemical study. Appl Pathol 3:164–169PubMed

27.

Olsen EB, Trier K, Eldov K, Ammitzboll T (1988) Glycosaminoglycans in human breast cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 67:539–542CrossRefPubMed

28.

Takeuchi JSM, Sato E, Shamoto M, Miura K, Nakagaki S (1976) Variation in Glycosaminoglycan Components of Breast Tumors. Cancer Res 36:2133–2139PubMed

29.

van der Molen AJ, Bellin MF (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: differences in diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 66:168–174CrossRefPubMed

30.

Renz DM, Durmus T, Bottcher J et al (2014) Comparison of Gadoteric Acid and Gadobutrol for Detection as Well as Morphologic and Dynamic Characterization of Lesions on Breast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Investig Radiol. doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000039

31.

Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Coady AM, Turnbull LW, Horsman A (1996) Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 69:1009–1016CrossRefPubMed

32.

Committee ACoRB-R, Radiology ACo (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology

33.

Li SP, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ et al (2011) Vascular characterisation of triple negative breast carcinomas using dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 21:1364–1373CrossRefPubMed

34.

Veltman J, Mann R, Kok T et al (2008) Breast tumor characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers on MRI. Eur Radiol 18:931–938CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

35.

Schmitz AC, Peters NH, Veldhuis WB et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced 3.0-T breast MRI for characterization of breast lesions: increased specificity by using vascular maps. Eur Radiol 18:355–364CrossRefPubMed

36.

Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 237:45–56CrossRefPubMed

37.

Pediconi F, Kubik-Huch R, Chilla B, Schwenke C, Kinkel K (2013) Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI. Eur Radiol 23:84–92CrossRefPubMed

38.

Anzalone N, Gerevini S, Scotti R, Vezzulli P, Picozzi P (2009) Detection of cerebral metastases on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Acta Radiol 50:933–940CrossRefPubMed

39.

Ibrahim MA, Haughton VM, Hyde JS (1995) Effect of disk maturation on diffusion of low-molecular-weight gadolinium complexes: an experimental study in rabbits. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 16:1307–1311PubMed

40.

Jansen SA, Shimauchi A, Zak L et al (2009) Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:832–839CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

41.

Pabst T, Kenn W, Kaiser WA, Hahn D (2001) Understanding why contrast enhancement in dynamic MRI is not reproducible: illustration with a simple phantom. Breast J 7:166–170CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Esseridou A, Di Leo G, Kirchin MA (2008) Gadobenate dimeglumine as a contrast agent for dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging: effect of higher initial enhancement thresholds on diagnostic performance. Investig Radiol 43:236–242CrossRef

43.

Prince MR, Zhang HL, Roditi GH, Leiner T, Kucharczyk W (2009) Risk factors for NSF: a literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1298–1308CrossRefPubMed

44.

Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging
verfasst von: Eva M. Fallenberg
Diane M. Renz
Bettina Karle
Carsten Schwenke
Barbara Ingod-Heppner
Angela Reles
Florian J. Engelken
Alexander Huppertz
Bernd Hamm
Matthias Taupitz
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3426-0

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging