Pulse Repetition Time and Contrast Enhancement: Simulation Study of Gd-BOPTA and Conventional Contrast Agent at Different Field Strengths

Gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in MR angiography: an in-vitro phantom comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) at different concentrations

BACKGROUND

Numerous clinical studies suggest that gadobenate dimeglumine is diagnostically superior to other gadolinium chelates for MR imaging applications, including contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA). However, confirmatory in-vitro phantom studies have thus far been lacking.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the difference in signal intensity achieved with the high-relaxivity MR contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) relative to that achieved with the standard-relaxivity non-specific agent gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) at different concentrations using an in-vitro phantom study design.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Test tubes with whole human blood were prepared with concentrations of gadobenate dimeglumine or gadopentetate dimeglumine ranging from 0 to 12 mM. A three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted gradient echo sequence normally used for CE-MRA of the renal arteries was performed at flip angles of 25° and 35°. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was calculated for all concentrations of both contrast agents. Furthermore a Look-Locker sequence was used and quantitative T1 mapping was performed for all the test tubes. The contrast agent concentration in the aorta was simulated using previously published data on T1 in the aorta during the first pass of a contrast agent. The differences between gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine were compared at the simulated concentrations.

RESULTS

The SNR achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine was consistently greater than that achieved with gadopentetate dimeglumine at all concentrations. An improvement of 15-25% in SNR was obtained when increasing the flip angle from 25° to 35°. The relative improvement in SNR with gadobenate dimeglumine relative to gadopentetate dimeglumine ranged from 25-72% and was markedly greater at lower concentrations with a flip angle of 35°.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the relative benefit of gadobenate dimeglumine over gadopentetate dimeglumine for CE-MRA applications is greater at lower concentrations.

Solid hypervascular liver lesions: accurate identification of true benign lesions on enhanced dynamic and hepatobiliary phase magnetic resonance imaging after gadobenate dimeglumine administration

PURPOSE

To evaluate hepatobiliary phase magnetic resonance imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine for differentiation of benign hypervascular liver lesions from malignant or high-risk lesions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Retrospective assessment was performed of 550 patients with 910 hypervascular lesions (302 focal nodular hyperplasia [FNH], 82 nodular regenerative hyperplasia [NRH], 59 hepatic adenoma or liver adenomatosis [HA/LA], 329 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCC], 12 fibrolamellar-HCC [FL-HCC], 21 peripheral cholangiocarcinomas [PCC], 105 metastases). Imaging was performed before and during the arterial, portal-venous, equilibrium, and hepatobiliary phases after gadobenate dimeglumine administration (0.05 mmol/kg). Histologic confirmation was available for ≥1 lesion per patient, except for patients with suspected FNH (diagnosis based on characteristic enhancement/follow-up). Lesion differentiation (benign/malignant) on the basis of contrast washout and lesion enhancement (hypo-/iso-/hyperintensity) was assessed (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV) relative to histology or final diagnosis.

RESULTS

On portal-venous or equilibrium phase images, washout was not seen for 208 of 526 (39.5%) malignant (HCC, FL-HCC, PCC, metastases) and high-risk (HA/LA) lesions. Conversely, only 5 of 384 (1.3%) true benign lesions (FNH/NRH) showed washout. Taking washout as indicating malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for malignant lesion identification during these phases was 61.8%, 98.7%, and 77.4%. On hepatobiliary phase images, 289 of 302 FNH, 82 of 82 NRH, 1 of 59 HA or LA, 62 of 341 HCC or FL-HCC, and 2 of 105 metastases were hyperintense or isointense. Taking iso- or hyperintensity as an indication for lesion benignity, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV for benign lesion identification was 96.6%, 87.6%, 91.4%, 85.1%, and 97.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hepatobiliary phase imaging with gadobenate dimeglumine is accurate for distinguishing benign lesions from malignant or high-risk lesions. Biopsy should be considered for hypointense lesions on hepatobiliary phase images after gadobenate dimeglumine.

PROPELLER for motion-robust imaging of in vivo mouse abdomen at 9.4 T

In vivo high-field MRI in the abdomen of small animals is technically challenging because of the small voxel sizes, short T(2) and physiological motion. In standard Cartesian sampling, respiratory and gastrointestinal motion can lead to ghosting artefacts. Although respiratory triggering and navigator echoes can either avoid or compensate for motion, they can lead to variable TRs, require invasive intubation and ventilation, or extend TEs. A self-navigated fast spin echo (FSE)-based periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction (PROPELLER) acquisition was implemented at 9.4 T to enable high-resolution in vivo MRI of mouse abdomen without the use of additional navigators or triggering. T(2)-weighted FSE-PROPELLER data were compared with single-shot FSE and multi-shot FSE data with and without triggering. Single-shot methods, although rapid and robust to motion, demonstrated strong blurring. Multi-shot FSE data showed better resolution, but suffered from marked blurring in the phase-encoding direction and motion in between shots, leading to ghosting artefacts. When respiratory triggering was used, motion artefacts were largely avoided. However, TRs and acquisition times were lengthened by up to approximately 20%. The PROPELLER data showed a 25% and 61% improvement in signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio, respectively, compared with multi-shot FSE data, together with a 35% reduction in artefact power. A qualitative comparison between acquisition methods using diffusion-weighted imaging was performed. The results were similar, with the exception that respiratory triggering was unable to exclude major motion artefacts as a result of the sensitisation to motion by the diffusion gradients. The PROPELLER data were of consistently higher quality. Considerations specific to the use of PROPELLER at high field are discussed, including the selection of practical blade widths and the effects on contrast, resolution and artefacts.

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the image quality and diagnostic performance achieved with doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine of 0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight in patients undergoing contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography of the pelvis, thigh, and lower-leg (excluding foot) for suspected or known peripheral arterial occlusive disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was granted from each center and informed written consent was obtained from all patients. Between November 2006 and January 2008, 96 patients (62 men, 34 women; mean age, 63.7 years +/- 10.4 [standard deviation]; range, 39-86 years) underwent two identical examinations at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences and randomized 0.1-mmol/kg doses of each agent. Images were evaluated on-site for technical adequacy and quality of vessel visualization and offsite by three independent blinded readers for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Comparative diagnostic performance was determined in 31 patients who underwent digital subtraction angiography. Data were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank, McNemar, and Wald tests. Interreader agreement was determined by using generalized kappa statistics. Differences in quantitative contrast enhancement were assessed and a safety evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients received both agents. Significantly better performance (P < .0001; all evaluations) with gadobenate dimeglumine was noted on-site for technical adequacy and vessel visualization quality and offsite for anatomic delineation and detection/exclusion of pathologic features. Contrast enhancement (P < or = .0001) and detection of clinically relevant disease (P < or = .0028) were significantly improved with gadobenate dimeglumine. Interreader agreement for stenosis detection and grading was good to excellent (kappa = 0.749 and 0.805, respectively). Mild adverse events were reported for four (six events) and five (eight events) patients after gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality vessel visualization, greater contrast enhancement, fewer technical failures, and improved diagnostic performance are obtained with gadobenate dimeglumine, relative to gadopentetate dimeglumine, when compared intraindividually at 0.1-mmol/kg doses in patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MR angiography for suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease.

Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma an intra-individual comparative study to assess the optimal time delay

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare tumor signal and contrast media uptake characteristics on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted sequences at 3 Tesla over 30 minutes after double-dose administration of different contrast agents in an animal model of brain glioma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine rats underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after stereotactic F98 glioma cell implantation before and repetitively for 30 minutes after injection of gadobutrol, gadopentetate, and gadobenate, respectively. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and tumor contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were evaluated and MRI-derived tumor volumes were compared to histology.

RESULTS

Postcontrast tumor SNR and CNR peaked at 4 minutes after contrast application. While contrast-enhancement within the tumor was fading, tumor volume increased by continuous contrast-uptake of peripheral parts between 4 minutes (137 + or - 29 mm(3), 126 + or - 16 mm(3), 141 + or - 24 mm(3)) and 20 minutes (182 + or - 35 mm(3), 164 + or - 32 mm(3), 191 + or - 25 mm(3)), respectively. At 8 and 12 minutes, 84% and 91% of the tumor volume were definable, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Optimal correlation between MRI-derived tumor volume and histology is achieved by imaging up to 20 minutes after contrast application. At 4 minutes (this delay is mostly used in clinical routine), only 75% of the enhancing tumor volume is assessable. A delay of 8 minutes already reveals 84% of the tumor and seems to be a practical clinical compromise.

Contrast-enhanced MRA of the renal and aorto-iliac-femoral arteries: comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadofosveset trisodium

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Dedicated contrast agents are now available for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA). This study retrospectively compares the safety and diagnostic performance data from Phase III regulatory trials performed to evaluate gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance(®)) and gadofosveset trisodium (Vasovist®)) for renal and peripheral CE-MRA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Similar examination and blinded assessment methodology was utilized in all studies to determine the safety and diagnostic performance of the agents for detection of significant (>50%) steno-occlusive disease. Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA) was used as the standard of truth. Diagnostic performance data (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values [PVs], and likelihood ratios [LRs]) were compared (Chi-square test).

RESULTS

CE-MRA with gadobenate dimeglumine was more specific (92.4% vs. 80.5%, p < 0.0001) and accurate (83.6% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.022) than CE-MRA with gadofosveset in the detection of significant renal artery stenosis. The average sensitivity was higher for gadofosveset (74.4% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.011) in peripheral vessels although gadobenate dimeglumine was more specific (93.0% vs. 88.2%, p < 0.0001) with no difference in accuracy (86.6% vs. 86.3%, p = 0.66). PPVs were higher (p < 0.0001) for gadobenate dimeglumine in both vascular territories. Pre- to post-test shifts in the probability of detecting significant disease were greater after gadobenate dimeglumine. Adverse events in the renal and peripheral studies were reported by 9.2% and 7.7% of patients after gadobenate dimeglumine compared with 30.3% and 22.1% of patients after gadofosveset.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of CE-MRA for the detection of significant steno-occlusive disease is similar with gadofosveset and gadobenate dimeglumine although the rate of adverse events appears higher with gadofosveset.

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of brain tumors at 3 tesla

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced MRI of brain lesions at 3 Tesla (T).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-six randomized patients underwent a first examination with gadobenate dimeglumine (n = 23) or gadopentetate dimeglumine (n = 23) and then, after 2-7 days, a second examination with the other agent. Contrast administration (volume, rate), sequence parameters (T1wSE; T1wGRE), and interval between injection and image acquisition were identical for examinations in each patient. Three blinded neuroradiologists evaluated images qualitatively (lesion delineation, lesion enhancement, global preference) and quantitatively (lesion-to-brain ratio [LBR], contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR], % lesion enhancement). Differences were assessed using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test. Reader agreement was determined using kappa (kappa) statistics.

RESULTS

There were no demographic differences between groups. The three readers preferred gadobenate dimeglumine globally in 22 (53.7%), 21 (51.2%), and 27 (65.9%) patients, respectively, compared with 0, 1, and 0 patients for gadopentetate dimeglumine. Similar significant (P < 0.001) preference was expressed for lesion border delineation and enhancement. Reader agreement was consistently good (kappa = 0.48-0.64). Significantly (P < 0.05) higher LBR (+43.5- 61.2%), CNR (+51.3-147.6%), and % lesion enhancement (+45.9-49.5%) was noted with gadobenate dimeglumine.

CONCLUSION

Brain lesion depiction at 3T is significantly improved with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine.

Advances in magnetic resonance (2008)

Current advances in magnetic resonance, as a diagnostic modality, are discussed in the context of publications from Investigative Radiology during 2007 and 2008. The articles relating to this topic, published during the past 2 years, are reviewed by anatomic region. The discussion concludes with a consideration of magnetic resonance contrast media, focusing on studies published in the journal, and examining in particular the potential impact of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis.

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The higher relaxivity of gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide is potentially advantageous for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative lesion enhancement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with suggested or known brain lesions underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, one with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadodiamide. The agents were administered in randomized order separated by 3-14 days. Imaging sequences and postinjection acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, and global preference) and quantitatively for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen of 138 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumor, metastasis, extra-axial tumor, or other (47, 27, 18, and 21 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated global preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 63 (55.8%), 77 (68.1%), and 73 (64.6%) patients, respectively, compared with 3, 2, and 3 patients for gadodiamide (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all qualitative end points and for CNR (increases of 23.3%-34.7% and 42.4%-48.9% [spin-echo and gradient-refocused echo sequences, respectively] for gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide). Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (kappa = 0.47-0.69). Significant preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all lesion subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

Significantly greater diagnostic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide at an equivalent dose.