nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.04.2015

Inter- and intra-individual comparative study of two gadolinium-based agents: A pilot study

verfasst von: Kyung Sook Shin, Mamdoh AlObaidy, Miguel Ramalho, Yong Hwan Jeon, Lauren M. Burke, Ersan Altun, Clifton G. Stallings, Richard C. Semelka

Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology | Ausgabe 4/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the acute adverse events rate and enhancement properties of gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem^®) and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance^®) in a small-scale controlled double-blinded study, using inter- and intra-individual comparisons.

Materials and Methods

Forty-one randomly selected patients were scanned with Dotarem^®. The rate of adverse reactions, qualitative and quantitative image evaluation was performed vs. a control group of 46 patients who underwent MultiHance^® over the same 1-month time period (population 1), and 27 patients who underwent both Dotarem^® and MultiHance^®-enhanced body MRI studies within an 18-month period (population 2). Data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

Only 1 mild acute adverse event (vomiting) was observed in population 1 (with Dotarem^®). Blinded assessment of image quality was good for both agents in all patients. Population 1 showed significantly higher liver percentage enhancement with MultiHance^® (p < 0.0001). There was a trend to higher pancreas-to-liver enhancement with Dotarem^®, significant in population 2 (p = 0.0333).

Conclusion

This small-scale multi-blinded study characterizes a strategy to objectively assess intravenous contrast agents, which may be an ideal method to evaluate whether a new contrast agent should be introduced for clinical use at any institution, and to re-evaluate the agent in standard use. Whenever available, intra-individual assessment may be ideal.

Balci NC, Semelka RC (2005) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 43:887–898. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2005.05.004 CrossRefPubMed

Zhou Z, Lu Z-R (2013) Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance cancer imaging. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 5:1–18. doi:10.1002/wnan.1198 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ (2007) Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1190–1197. doi:10.1002/jmri.21135 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, et al. (1996) Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 200:59–67. doi:10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657946 CrossRefPubMed

Kuwatsuru R, Kadoya M, Ohtomo K, et al. (2001) Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance imaging of liver tumors. Invest Radiol 36:632–641CrossRefPubMed

Tombach B, Bohndorf K, Brodtrager W, et al. (2008) Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial. Eur Radiol 18:2610–2619. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1054-2 CrossRefPubMed

Kuhn J-P, Hegenscheid K, Siegmund W, et al. (2009) Normal dynamic MRI enhancement patterns of the upper abdominal organs: gadoxetic acid compared with gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1318–1323. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2412 CrossRefPubMed

Hammerstingl R, Adam G, Ayuso J-R, et al. (2009) Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in five hundred seventy-two patients with known or suspected liver lesions: results of a multicenter, double-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase-III trial. Invest Radiol 44:168–176. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e318198a0ae CrossRefPubMed

Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238:780–789. doi:10.1148/radiol.2383041109 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Weber JCP (1984) Epidemiology of adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, vol 6. In: Rainsford KD, Velo GP (ed). Raven Press, New York, pp 1–7

11.

Lalli AF (1974) Urographic contrast media reactions and anxiety. Radiology 112:267–271. doi:10.1148/112.2.267 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lalli AF (1980) Contrast media reactions: data analysis and hypothesis. Radiology 134:1–12. doi:10.1148/radiology.134.1.6985735 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Semelka RC, Hernandes M de A, Stallings CG, Castillo M (2013) Objective evaluation of acute adverse events and image quality of gadolinium-based contrast agents (gadobutrol and gadobenate dimeglumine) by blinded evaluation. Pilot study. Magn Reson Imaging 31:96–101. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.025 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Goncalves Neto JA, Altun E, Vaidean G, et al. (2009) Early contrast enhancement of the liver: exact description of subphases using MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 27:792–800. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2008.11.003 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Runge VM, Kenney CM (2000) Phase II double-blind, dose-ranging clinical evaluation of gadobenate dimeglumine in focal liver lesions: with analysis of liver and kidney signal change on early and delayed imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 11:655–664. doi:10.1002/1522-2586(200006)11:6<655::AID-JMRI12>3.0.CO;2-HCrossRefPubMed

16.

Schneider G, Maas R, Schultze Kool L, et al. (2003) Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: an intra-individual crossover comparison. Invest Radiol 38:85–94. doi:10.1097/01.RLI.0000044931.26224.F9 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Nural MS, Gokce E, Danaci M, Bayrak IK, Diren HB (2008) Focal liver lesions: whether a standard dose (0.05 mmol/kg) gadobenate dimeglumine can provide the same diagnostic data as the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Eur J Radiol 66:65–74. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.022 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Chu LL, Joe BN, Westphalen ACA, et al. (2007) Patient-specific time to peak abdominal organ enhancement varies with time to peak aortic enhancement at MR imaging. Radiology 245:779–787. doi:10.1148/radiol.2451061585 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2):363–374CrossRefPubMed

20.

Core Team R (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, 3rd edn. Vienna: Austria

21.

Runge VM, Knopp MV (1999) Off-label use and reimbursement of contrast media in MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:489–495. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<489::AID-JMRI35>3.0.CO;2-1 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Maurer M, Heine O, Wolf M, et al. (2012) Tolerability and diagnostic value of gadoteric acid in the general population and in patients with risk factors: results in more than 84,000 patients. Eur J Radiol 81:885–890. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.022 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Herborn CU, Honold E, Wolf M, et al. (2007) Clinical safety and diagnostic value of the gadolinium chelate gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA). Invest Radiol 42:58–62CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ishiguchi T, Takahashi S (2010) Safety of gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA) as a contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging: results of a post-marketing surveillance study in Japan. Drugs R D 10:133–145. doi:10.2165/11539140-000000000-00000 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

25.

Herborn CU, Jager-Booth I, Lodemann KP, Spinazzi A, Goyen M (2009) Multicenter analysis of tolerance and clinical safety of the extracellular MR contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance). Rofo 181:652–657. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109202 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Oudkerk M, Sijens PE, Van Beek EJ, Kuijpers TJ (1995) Safety and efficacy of dotarem (Gd-DOTA) versus magnevist (Gd-DTPA) in magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. Invest Radiol 30:75–78CrossRefPubMed

27.

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. Invest Radiol 40:715–724CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kim MJ, Kim SH, Kim HJ, et al. (2013) Enhancement of liver and pancreas on late hepatic arterial phase imaging: quantitative comparison among multiple gadolinium-based contrast agents at 1.5 tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:102–108. doi:10.1002/jmri.23934 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kim HJ, Kim BS, Kim MJ, et al. (2012) Enhancement of the liver and pancreas in the hepatic arterial dominant phase: comparison of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agents, gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine, on 3 and 1.5 tesla MRI in the same patient. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:903–908. doi:10.1002/jmri.23874 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Murphy KP, Szopinski KT, Cohan RH, Mermillod B, Ellis JH (1999) Occurrence of adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast material and management of patients at increased risk: a survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Fellowship Directors. Acad Radiol 6:656–664. doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(99)80114-7 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Shellock FG, Spinazzi A (2008) MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1129–1139. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1038.1 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Inter- and intra-individual comparative study of two gadolinium-based agents: A pilot study
verfasst von: Kyung Sook Shin
Mamdoh AlObaidy
Miguel Ramalho
Yong Hwan Jeon
Lauren M. Burke
Ersan Altun
Clifton G. Stallings
Richard C. Semelka
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Abdominal Radiology / Ausgabe 4/2015
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Elektronische ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0248-0

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Inter- and intra-individual comparative study of two gadolinium-based agents: A pilot study