nach oben

European Radiology

Erschienen in:

01.03.2016 | Contrast Media

MRI in multiple sclerosis: an intra-individual, randomized and multicentric comparison of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine at 3 T

verfasst von: Marc Saake, Soenke Langner, Carsten Schwenke, Marina Weibart, Olav Jansen, Norbert Hosten, Arnd Doerfler

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 3/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare contrast effects of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine for brain MRI in multiple sclerosis (MS) in a multicentre, randomized, prospective, intraindividual study at 3 T.

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients with known or suspected active MS lesions were included. Two identical MRIs were performed using randomized contrast agent order. Four post-contrast T1 sequences were acquired (start time points 0, 3, 6 and 9 min). If no enhancing lesion was present in first MRI, second MRI was cancelled. Quantitative (number and signal intensity of enhancing lesions) and qualitative parameters (time points of first and all lesions enhancing; subjective preference regarding contrast enhancement and lesion delineation; global preference) were evaluated blinded.

Results

Seventy-four patients (male, 26; mean age, 35 years) were enrolled in three centres. In 45 patients enhancing lesions were found. Number of enhancing lesions increased over time for both contrast agents without significant difference (median 2 for both). Lesions signal intensity was significantly higher for gadobutrol (p < 0.05 at time points 3, 6 and 9 min). Subjective preference rating showed non-significant tendency in favour of gadobutrol.

Conclusion

Both gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine can be used for imaging of acute inflammatory MS lesions. However, gadobutrol generates higher lesion SI.

Key Points

• Contrast-enhanced MRI plays a key role in the management of multiple sclerosis.

• Different gadolinium-based contrast agents are available.

• Number of visibly enhancing lesions increases over time after contrast injection.

• Gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine do not differ in number of visible lesions.

• Gadobutrol generates higher signal intensity than gadoterate meglumine.

Polman CH, Reingold SC, Banwell B et al (2011) Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 69:292–302PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Montalban X, Tintoré M, Swanton J et al (2010) MRI criteria for MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 74:427–434CrossRefPubMed

Filippi M, Preziosa P, Rocca MA (2014) Magnetic resonance outcome measures in multiple sclerosis trials: time to rethink? Curr Opin Neurol 27:290–299CrossRefPubMed

Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, Cutter GR, Mancardi GL, Bruzzi P (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analytic approach. Ann Neurol 65:268–275CrossRefPubMed

Sormani MP, Bruzzi P (2013) MRI lesions as a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Neurol 12:669–676CrossRefPubMed

Koenig M, Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Piontek M et al (2013) Intra-individual, randomised comparison of the MRI contrast agents gadobutrol versus gadoteridol in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours, evaluated in a blinded read. Eur Radiol 23:3287–3295CrossRefPubMed

Anzalone N, Scarabino T, Venturi C et al (2013) Cerebral neoplastic enhancing lesions: multicenter, randomized, crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol (1.0M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5M) at 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 82:139–145CrossRefPubMed

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

European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2014) ESUR guidelines on contrast media. European Society of Urogenital Radiology, Vienna. Available via http://www.esur.org/guidelines/. Accessed 15 Mar 2015

10.

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

11.

Wansapura JP, Holland SK, Dunn RS, Ball WS Jr (1999) NMR relaxation times in the human brain at 3.0 tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:531–538CrossRefPubMed

12.

Filippi M, Yousry T, Rocca MA, Fesl G, Voltz R, Comi G (1997) Sensitivity of delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 95:331–334CrossRefPubMed

13.

Simon JH, Li D, Traboulsee A et al (2006) Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27:455–461PubMed

14.

Lövblad KO, Anzalone N, Dörfler A et al (2010) MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:983–989CrossRefPubMed

15.

Heye AK, Culling RD, Valdés Hernández MD, Thrippleton MJ, Wardlaw JM (2014) Assessment of blood–brain barrier disruption using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. A systematic review. Neuroimage Clin 6:262–274PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

16.

Jelescu IO, Leppert IR, Narayanan S, Araújo D, Arnold DL, Pike GB (2011) Dual-temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI protocol for blood–brain barrier permeability measurement in enhancing multiple sclerosis lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:1291–1300CrossRefPubMed

17.

Leppert IR, Narayanan S, Araújo D et al (2014) Interpreting therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis via MRI contrast enhancing lesions: now you see them, now you don't. J Neurol 261:809–816CrossRefPubMed

18.

Stankiewicz JM, Glanz BI, Healy BC et al (2011) Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 21:e50–e56PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

19.

Uysal E, Erturk SM, Yildirim H, Seleker F, Basak M (2007) Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:697–702CrossRefPubMed

20.

Filippi M, Rovaris M, Capra R et al (1998) A multi-centre longitudinal study comparing the sensitivity of monthly MRI after standard and triple dose gadolinium-DTPA for monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Implications for phase II clinical trials. Brain 121:2011–2020CrossRefPubMed

21.

Le Duc G, Corde S, Charvet AM et al (2004) In vivo measurement of gadolinium concentration in a rat glioma model by monochromatic quantitative computed tomography: comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol. Investig Radiol 39:385–393CrossRef

22.

Silver NC, Good CD, Barker GJ et al (1997) Sensitivity of contrast enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis. Effects of gadolinium dose, magnetization transfer contrast and delayed imaging. Brain 120:1149–1161CrossRefPubMed

23.

Engelhorn T, Schwarz MA, Eyupoglu IY, Kloska SP, Struffert T, Doerfler A (2010) Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma an intra-individual comparative study to assess the optimal time delay. Acad Radiol 17:188–193CrossRefPubMed

24.

Bagheri MH, Meshksar A, Nabavizadeh SA, Borhani-Haghighi A, Ashjazadeh N, Nikseresht AR (2008) Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery and delayed contrast-enhanced brain MRI in multiple sclerosis. Acad Radiol 15:15–23CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hashemi H, Behzadi S, Ghanaati H et al (2014) Evaluation of plaque detection and optimum time of enhancement in acute attack multiple sclerosis after contrast injection. Acta Radiol 55:218–224CrossRefPubMed

26.

Filippi M, Capra R, Campi A et al (1996) Triple dose of gadolinium-DTPA and delayed MRI in patients with benign multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 60:526–530PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

27.

Lucchinetti C, Brück W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H (2000) Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol 47:707–717CrossRefPubMed

28.

Rosenberg GA (2012) Neurological diseases in relation to the blood–brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 32:1139–1151PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

29.

Soon D, Tozer D, Altmann D, Tofts P, Miller D (2007) Quantification of subtle blood–brain barrier disruption in non-enhancing lesions in multiple sclerosis: a study of disease and lesion subtypes. Mult Scler 13:884–894CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kermode AG, Thompson AJ, Tofts P et al (1990) Breakdown of the blood–brain barrier precedes symptoms and other MRI signs of new lesions in multiple sclerosis. Pathogenetic and clinical implications. Brain 113:1477–1489CrossRefPubMed

31.

Tofts PS, Kermode AG (1991) Measurement of the blood–brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 17:357–367CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ingrisch M, Sourbron S, Morhard D et al (2012) Quantification of perfusion and permeability in multiple sclerosis: dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in 3D at 3T. Investig Radiol 47:252–258CrossRef

Titel: MRI in multiple sclerosis: an intra-individual, randomized and multicentric comparison of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine at 3 T
verfasst von: Marc Saake
Soenke Langner
Carsten Schwenke
Marina Weibart
Olav Jansen
Norbert Hosten
Arnd Doerfler
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3889-7

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

MRI in multiple sclerosis: an intra-individual, randomized and multicentric comparison of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine at 3 T

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key Points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Injuries of the scapholunate and lunotriquetral ligaments as well as the TFCC in intra-articular distal radius fractures. Prevalence assessed with MDCT arthrography

3D quantitative assessment of response to fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy and single-session stereotactic radiosurgery of vestibular schwannoma

Differentiation of malignant from benign soft tissue tumours: use of additive qualitative and quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging to standard MR imaging at 3.0 T

In vitro artefact assessment of a new MR-compatible microwave antenna and a standard MR-compatible radiofrequency ablation electrode for tumour ablation

Pancreatic adenocarcinomas without secondary signs on multiphasic multidetector CT: association with clinical and histopathologic features

Molecular magnetic resonance imaging of atherosclerotic vessel wall disease

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie