• Something wrong with this record ?

Does higher gadolinium concentration play a role in the morphologic assessment of brain tumors? Results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine (the MERIT Study)

Z. Seidl, J. Vymazal, M. Mechl, M. Goyal, M. Herman, C. Colosimo, M. Pasowicz, R. Yeung, B. Paraniak-Gieszczyk, B. Yemen, N. Anzalone, A. Citterio, G. Schneider, S. Bastianello, J. Ruscalleda,

. 2012 ; 33 (6) : 1050-8.

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gadobenate dimeglumine has proved advantageous compared with other gadolinium-based contrast agents for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. Gadobutrol is a more highly concentrated agent (1.0 mol/L). This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of brain tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with suspected or known brain tumors underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, 1 with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadobutrol, both at a dose of 0.1-mmol/kg body weight. The agents were injected in randomized order separated by 3-14 days. Imaging sequences and acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, global preference) and quantitatively for CNR and LBR. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 123 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumors, metastases, extra-axial tumors, "other" tumors, and "nontumor" (49, 46, 8, 7, and 4 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 46 (40.7%), 54 (47.4%), and 49 (43.0%) patients, respectively, compared with 6, 7, and 7 patients for gadobutrol (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all other qualitative end points. Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (κ = 0.414-0.629). Significantly superior CNR and LBR were determined for gadobenate dimeglumine (P < .019, all readers). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater morphologic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadobutrol at an equivalent dose.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc13012739
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20130409094959.0
007      
ta
008      
130404s2012 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.3174/ajnr.a3033 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)22383237
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Seidl, Z $u Lekarska Fakulta, Neurologicka Klinika, Prague, Czech Republic. zseid@lf1.cuni.cz
245    10
$a Does higher gadolinium concentration play a role in the morphologic assessment of brain tumors? Results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine (the MERIT Study) / $c Z. Seidl, J. Vymazal, M. Mechl, M. Goyal, M. Herman, C. Colosimo, M. Pasowicz, R. Yeung, B. Paraniak-Gieszczyk, B. Yemen, N. Anzalone, A. Citterio, G. Schneider, S. Bastianello, J. Ruscalleda,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Gadobenate dimeglumine has proved advantageous compared with other gadolinium-based contrast agents for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. Gadobutrol is a more highly concentrated agent (1.0 mol/L). This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of brain tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with suspected or known brain tumors underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, 1 with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadobutrol, both at a dose of 0.1-mmol/kg body weight. The agents were injected in randomized order separated by 3-14 days. Imaging sequences and acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, global preference) and quantitatively for CNR and LBR. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 123 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumors, metastases, extra-axial tumors, "other" tumors, and "nontumor" (49, 46, 8, 7, and 4 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 46 (40.7%), 54 (47.4%), and 49 (43.0%) patients, respectively, compared with 6, 7, and 7 patients for gadobutrol (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all other qualitative end points. Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (κ = 0.414-0.629). Significantly superior CNR and LBR were determined for gadobenate dimeglumine (P < .019, all readers). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater morphologic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadobutrol at an equivalent dose.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a nádory mozku $x patologie $7 D001932
650    _2
$a kontrastní látky $7 D003287
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $x metody $7 D008279
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a meglumin $x analogy a deriváty $x diagnostické užití $7 D008536
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a odchylka pozorovatele $7 D015588
650    _2
$a organokovové sloučeniny $x diagnostické užití $7 D009942
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
651    _2
$a Česká republika $7 D018153
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Vymazal, J $u -
700    1_
$a Mechl, M $u -
700    1_
$a Goyal, M $u -
700    1_
$a Herman, M $u -
700    1_
$a Colosimo, C $u -
700    1_
$a Pasowicz, M $u -
700    1_
$a Yeung, R $u -
700    1_
$a Paraniak-Gieszczyk, B $u -
700    1_
$a Yemen, B $u -
700    1_
$a Anzalone, N $u - $7 gn_A_00007646
700    1_
$a Citterio, A $u -
700    1_
$a Schneider, G $u -
700    1_
$a Bastianello, S $u -
700    1_
$a Ruscalleda, J $u -
773    0_
$w MED00009116 $t AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology $x 1936-959X $g Roč. 33, č. 6 (2012), s. 1050-8
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22383237 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20130404 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20130409095227 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 975937 $s 811020
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2012 $b 33 $c 6 $d 1050-8 $i 1936-959X $m American journal of neuroradiology $n AJNR Am J Neuroradiol $x MED00009116
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20130404

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...