Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-12-2019 | Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy | Urogenital

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: intraindividual comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol

Authors: Chau Hung Lee, Balamurugan Vellayappan, Matthias Taupitz, Bernd Hamm, Patrick Asbach

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2019

Abstract

Objectives

To intraindividually compare the signal-enhancing effect of 0.5 M gadoterate meglumine and 1.0 M gadobutrol in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE-MR) imaging of the prostate.

Methods

Fifty patients who underwent two 3-T MR examinations of the prostate were included in this IRB-approved retrospective uncontrolled, unrandomized study. All received two scans (mean time interval, 20.5 months) including T1-weighted DCE-MR imaging, one with 0.5 M gadoterate meglumine and one with 1.0 M gadobutrol. Equimolar doses of gadolinium (0.1 mmol/kg body weight) were administered with identical injection speed (2 mL/s), resulting in differing gadolinium delivery rate. An identical region of interest (ROI_tz) within a BPH-node was identified on both scans. The area under the time-enhancement curve of each ROI_tz from 0 to 180 s post contrast arrival and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Relative enhancement and signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios in the delayed phase at about 180 s were compared between both agents.

Results

There was a significantly larger area under the time-enhancement curve (5.53 vs 4.97 p = 0.0007) and higher relative enhancement of BPH nodules (2.23 vs 1.96 p < 0.0001) with gadobutrol compared with gadoterate meglumine. There were no significant differences in SNR (44.55 vs 37.63 p = 0.12), CNR (31.22 vs 26.39 p = 0.18), and pharmacokinetic parameters Ktrans (0.31 vs 0.32 p = 0.86), Ve (1.36 vs 0.98 p = 0.13), and Kep (0.34 vs 0.36 p = 0.12).

Conclusions

At equimolar doses, increased gadolinium delivery over time using gadobutrol provides higher relative enhancement parameters in BPH nodules compared with gadoterate meglumine, but does not translate into improved SNR or CNR.

Key Points

• At equal injection rate and equimolar total dose, gadobutrol compared with gadoterate meglumine provides a significantly greater relative enhancement in DCE-MR imaging of BPH over the first 180 s.

• There are no significant differences in SNRs, CNRs, and pharmacokinetic parameters between the two GBCAs.

Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur J Radiol 66:160–167PubMedCrossRef

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

Cuenod CA, Balvay D (2013) Perfusion and vascular permeability: basic concepts and measurement in DCE-CT and DCE-MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:1187–1204PubMedCrossRef

Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:91–101PubMedCrossRef

Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Morelli JN, Williams J, Jackson CB, Michaely HJ (2010) Evaluation of gadobutrol, a macrocyclic, nonionic gadolinium chelate in a brain glioma model: comparison with gadoterate meglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine at 1.5 T, combined with an assessment of field strength dependence, specifically 1.5 versus 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:549–555PubMedCrossRef

Fallenberg EM, Renz DM, Karle B et al (2015) Intraindividual, randomized comparison of the macrocyclic contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 25:837–849PubMedCrossRef

Durmus T, Vollnberg B, Schwenke C et al (2013) Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the prostate: comparison of gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA. Rofo 85:862–868

Kulh CK, Mielcarek P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110CrossRef

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 17:357–367PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385PubMedCrossRef

11.

Motulsky HJ, Ransnas LA (1987) Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical review. FASEB J 1:365–374PubMedCrossRef

12.

Prince MR, Lee HG, Lee CH et al (2017) Safety of gadobutrol in over 23,000 patients: the GARDIAN study, a global multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study. Eur Radiol 27:286–295PubMedCrossRef

13.

Elster AD (1997) How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol 7:S276–S280CrossRef

14.

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 82:139–145PubMedCrossRef

15.

Maravilla KR, San-Juan D, Kim SJ et al (2017) Comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol in the MRI diagnosis of primary brain tumors: a double-blind randomized controlled intraindividual crossover study (the REMIND study). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:1681–1688PubMedCrossRef

16.

Saake M, Langner S, Schwenke C et al (2016) MRI in multiple sclerosis: an intra-individual, randomized and multicentric comparison of gadobutrol with gadoterate meglumine at 3 T. Eur Radiol 26:820–828PubMedCrossRef

17.

Lancelot E, Froehlich J, Heine O, Desché P (2016) Effects of gadolinium-based contrast agent concentrations (0.5 M or 1.0 M) on the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging examinations: systematic review of the literature. Acta Radiol 57:1334–1343PubMedCrossRef

18.

Haneder S, Attenberger UI, Schoenberg SO, Loewe C, Arnaiz J, Michaely HJ (2012) Comparison of 0.5 M gadoterate and 1.0 M gadobutrol in peripheral MRA: a prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover, double-blind study. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1213–1221PubMedCrossRef

19.

Szucs-Farkas Z, Froehlich JM, Ulrich M et al (2008) 1.0-M gadobutrol versus 0.5-M gadoterate for peripheral magnetic resonance angiography: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:1399–1405PubMedCrossRef

20.

Kramer JH, Arnoldi E, François CJ et al (2013) Dynamic and static magnetic resonance angiography of the supra-aortic vessels at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol, gadobenate dimeglumine, and gadoterate meglumine at equimolar dose. Invest Radiol 48:121–128PubMedCrossRef

21.

Hoelter P, Lang S, Weibart M et al (2017) Prospective intraindividual comparison of gadoterate and gadobutrol for cervical and intracranial contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Neuroradiology 59:1233–1239PubMedCrossRef

22.

Loewe C, Arnaiz J, Krause D, Marti-Bonmati L, Haneder S, Kramer U (2015) MR angiography at 3 T of peripheral arterial disease: a randomized prospective comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:1311–1321PubMedCrossRef

23.

Renz DM, Durmus T, Böttcher J et al (2014) Comparison of gadoteric acid and gadobutrol for detection as well as morphologic and dynamic characterization of lesions on breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 49:474–484PubMedCrossRef

24.

Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1339–1346PubMedCrossRef

25.

Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann CM et al (2011) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast MR imaging (DETECT trial). Radiology 258:396–408PubMedCrossRef

26.

Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 21:616–626PubMedCrossRef

27.

De Visschere PJL, Vral A, Perletti G et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of normal, benign and malignant conditions in the prostate. Eur Radiol 27:2095–2109PubMedCrossRef

28.

Brown DL, Lalla CD, Masselink AJ (2013) AUC versus peak-trough dosing of vancomycin: applying new pharmacokinetic paradigms to an old drug. Ther Drug Monit 35:443–449PubMedCrossRef

29.

Tombach B, Benner T, Reimer P et al (2003) Do highly concentrated gadolinium chelates improve MR brain perfusion imaging? Intraindividually controlled randomized crossover concentration comparison study of 0.5 versus 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol. Radiology 226:880–888PubMedCrossRef

30.

Weishaupt D, Köchli VD, Marincek B (2003) Factors affecting the signal-to-noise ratio. In: How does MRI work? Springer, Berlin, pp 31–42CrossRef

31.

Kim YK, Lee YH, Kim CS, Han YM, Hwang SB (2008) Double-dose 1.0-M gadobutrol versus standard-dose 0.5-M gadopentetate dimeglumine in revealing small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas. Eur Radiol 18:70–77PubMedCrossRef

32.

Pennekamp W, Roggenland D, Hering S et al (2011) Intraindividual, randomised comparison of the MRI contrast agents gadobutrol and gadoterate in imaging the distal lower limb of patients with known or suspected osteomyelitis, evaluated in an off-site blinded read. Eur Radiol 21:1058–1067PubMedCrossRef

33.

Escribano F, Sentís M, Oliva JC et al (2018) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: comparison of gadobutrol vs. Gd-DTPA. Radiologia 60:49–56PubMedCrossRef

34.

Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hütter J, Weinmann HJ (2008) Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 43:817–828

35.

Gillis A, Gray M, Burstein D (2002) Relaxivity and diffusion of gadolinium agents in cartilage. Magn Reson Med 48:1068–1071PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wiener E, Woertler K, Weirich G, Rummeny EJ, Settles M (2007) Contrast enhanced cartilage imaging: comparison of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents. Eur J Radiol 63:110–119PubMedCrossRef

37.

Mathur SK, Gupta S, Marwah N, Narula A, Singh S, Arora B (2003) Significance of mucin stain in differentiating benign and malignant lesions of prostate. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 46:593–595

38.

Khanna A, Patil R, Deshmukh A (2014) Assessment of the potential of pathological stains in human prostate cancer. J Clin Diagn Res 8:124–128PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

39.

Chesnais AL, Niaf E, Bratan F et al (2013) Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol 68:e323–e330PubMedCrossRef

40.

van Niekerk CG, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, van der Laak JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA (2013) Microvascularity in transition zone prostate tumors resembles normal prostatic tissue. Prostate 73:467–475

41.

Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer: morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 19:470–480PubMedCrossRef

42.

Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ (2016) PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics 36:1354–1372PubMedCrossRef

43.

Drew PJ, Chatterjee S, Turnbull LW et al (1999) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is superior to triple assessment for the pre-operative detection of multifocal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 6:599–603PubMedCrossRef

44.

Pickles MD, Lowry M, Manton DJ, Turnbull LW (2015) Prognostic value of DCE-MRI in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison with traditional survival indicators. Eur Radiol 25:1097–1106PubMedCrossRef

Title: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: intraindividual comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol
Authors: Chau Hung Lee
Balamurugan Vellayappan
Matthias Taupitz
Bernd Hamm
Patrick Asbach
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy
Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 12/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06321-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the prostate: intraindividual comparison of gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2019

Structural and functional MRI correlates of T2 hyperintensities of brain white matter in young neurologically asymptomatic adults

Correction to: Epicardial fat volume measured on nongated chest CT is a predictor of coronary artery disease

Hiatal hernias in patients with GERD-like symptoms: evaluation of dynamic real-time MRI vs endoscopy

Enlarged hepatic hilar lymph node: an additional ultrasonographic feature that may be helpful in the diagnosis of biliary atresia

Preoperative CT findings for prediction of resectability in patients with gallbladder cancer

Point estimate and reference normality interval of MRI-derived myocardial extracellular volume in healthy subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis