8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Benefits of High Relaxivity for Brain Tumor Imaging: Results of a Multicenter Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine with Gadoterate Meglumine (The BENEFIT Study)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The authors performed a crossover, intraindividual comparison of 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate with 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate (Arm 1) and 0.05-mmol/kg gadobenate with 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate (Arm 2). In Arm 1, a significant superiority of 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate was demonstrated by all readers for all end points. In Arm 2, no significant differences were observed for any reader and any end point, with the exception of percentage enhancement for reader 2 in favor of 0.05-mmol/kg gadobenate.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

          Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) has higher r1 relaxivity than gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem) which may permit the use of lower doses for MR imaging applications. Our aim was to compare 0.1- and 0.05-mmol/kg body weight gadobenate with 0.1-mmol/kg body weight gadoterate for MR imaging assessment of brain tumors.

          MATERIALS AND METHODS:

          We performed crossover, intraindividual comparison of 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate with 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate (Arm 1) and 0.05-mmol/kg gadobenate with 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate (Arm 2). Adult patients with suspected or known brain tumors were randomized to Arm 1 (70 patients) or Arm 2 (107 patients) and underwent 2 identical examinations at 1.5T. The agents were injected in randomized-sequence order, and the 2 examinations were separated by 2–14 days. MR imaging scanners, imaging sequences (T1-weighted spin-echo and T1-weighted high-resolution gradient-echo), and acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images for diagnostic information (degree of definition of lesion extent, lesion border delineation, visualization of lesion internal morphology, contrast enhancement) and quantitatively for percentage lesion enhancement and lesion-to-background ratio. Safety assessments were performed.

          RESULTS:

          In Arm 1, a highly significant superiority ( P < .002) of 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate was demonstrated by all readers for all end points. In Arm 2, no significant differences ( P > .1) were observed for any reader and any end point, with the exception of percentage enhancement for reader 2 ( P < .05) in favor of 0.05-mmol/kg gadobenate. Study agent–related adverse events were reported by 2/169 (1.2%) patients after gadobenate and by 5/175 (2.9%) patients after gadoterate.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Significantly superior morphologic information and contrast enhancement are demonstrated on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate compared with 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate. No meaningful differences were recorded between 0.05-mmol/kg gadobenate and 0.1-mmol/kg gadoterate.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
          AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
          ajnr
          ajnr
          AJNR
          AJNR: American Journal of Neuroradiology
          American Society of Neuroradiology
          0195-6108
          1936-959X
          September 2015
          : 36
          : 9
          : 1589-1598
          Affiliations
          [1] aFrom the Charles University in Prague (M.V.), First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
          [2] bUniversity Hospital Olomouc (M.H.), Olomouc, Czech Republic
          [3] cBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (M.P.S.), Boston, Massachusetts
          [4] dFaculty of Medicine (M.M.), University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
          [5] eMR Research Laboratory (K.R.M.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
          [6] fNa Homolce Hospital (J.W.), Prague, Czech Republic
          [7] gDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science (M.V.S.), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
          [8] hUniversity Faculty of Medicine in Hradec Králové (J.Ž.), University Hospital Hradec Králové and Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
          [9] iMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (F.J.W.), Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
          [10] jClinical Radiologists, S.C. (J.J.B.), Springfield, Illinois
          [11] kGood Samaritan Regional Medical Center (R.B.), Corvallis, Oregon
          [12] lInstitute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (E.B.), Hannover, Germany
          [13] mHarvard Medical School (R.Y.H.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
          [14] nUniversity Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf (J.-H.B.), Hamburg, Germany
          [15] oHopital Gui de Chauliac (A.B.), Montpellier, France
          [16] pPoliclinico “Agostino Gemelli” (C.C.), Rome, Italy
          [17] qWest China Hospital of Sichuan University (S.L.), Chengdu, Sichuan, China
          [18] rGlobal Medical & Regulatory Affairs (M.A.K.), Bracco Imaging S.p.A., Milan, Italy
          [19] sGlobal Medical & Regulatory Affairs (N.S., G.P., A.S.), Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe, New Jersey.
          Author notes
          Please address correspondence to Manuela Vaneckova, MD, Charles University in Prague, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Kateřinská 30, CZ-12808 Prague 2, Czech Republic; e-mail: man.van@ 123456post.cz
          Author information
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8784-7997
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-3435
          http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0775-6516
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1736-2310
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9188-5374
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5774-9651
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2040-1894
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8035-0144
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5412-8307
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4502-7851
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0059-6081
          http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4453-0612
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7661-797X
          http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8003-6446
          http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5803-7867
          Article
          PMC7968770 PMC7968770 7968770 15-00531
          10.3174/ajnr.A4468
          7968770
          26185325
          7157b4af-22b6-49dd-a42e-0b4efbf8e831
          © 2015 by American Journal of Neuroradiology

          Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

          History
          : 20 May 2015
          : 8 June 2015
          Categories
          Adult Brain
          Fellows' Journal Club
          Evidence-Based Medicine Level 1

          Comments

          Comment on this article