Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 12/2013

01-12-2013 | Contrast Media

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

Authors: M. Koenig, G. Schulte-Altedorneburg, M. Piontek, A. Hentsch, P. Spangenberg, C. Schwenke, A. Harders, L. Heuser

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To prove that 1.0 M gadobutrol provides superior contrast enhancement and MRI image characteristics of primary and secondary brain tumours compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, thereby providing superior diagnostic information.

Methods

Brain MRI was performed in two separate examinations in patients scheduled for neurosurgery. Independent injections of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadoteridol at doses of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight were administered per patient in randomised order. Evaluation was performed in an off-site blinded read.

Results

Fifty-one patients in the full analysis set (FAS) were eligible for efficacy analysis and 44 for the per-protocol analysis. For the primary efficacy variable “preference in contrast enhancement for one contrast agent or the other”, the rate of “gadobutrol preferred” was estimated at 0.73 (95 % confidence interval 0.61; 0.83), showing significant superiority of gadobutrol over gadoteridol. Calculated lesion-to-brain contrast and the results of all qualitative secondary efficacy variables were also in favour of gadobutrol. Keeping a sufficient time delay after contrast application proved to be essential to get optimal image quality.

Conclusion

Compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, 1.0 M gadobutrol was proven to have significantly superior contrast enhancement characteristics in a routine MRI protocol of primary and secondary brain tumours.

Key Points

• Contrast-enhanced MRI is the imaging technique of choice in CNS tumours.
• Intra-individual comparison proved preference of gadobutrol over gadoteridol.
• Quantitative results also showed significant superiority regarding lesion-to-brain contrast.
• The time interval between contrast administration and image acquisition must be sufficient.
Literature
1.
Maley JE, Yuh WT (1998) Contrast dosage in the neuroimaging of brain tumors. Principles and indications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 6:113–124PubMed
2.
Morcos SK (2008) Extracellular gadolinium contrast agents: differences in stability. Eur J Radiol 66:175–179PubMedCrossRef
3.
Morcos SK, Thomsen HS (2008) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: more questions and some answers. Nephron Clin Pract 110:c24–c31, discussion c32PubMedCrossRef
4.
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. Invest Radiol 40:715–724PubMedCrossRef
5.
Huppertz A, Rohrer M (2004) Gadobutrol, a highly concentrated MR-imaging contrast agent: its physicochemical characteristics and the basis for its use in contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion imaging. Eur Radiol 14:M12–M18PubMedCrossRef
6.
Lemke AJ, Sander B, Balzer T, Geens V, Hosten N, Felix R (1997) Safety and use of gadobutrol in patients with brain tumors (phase III trial). Rofo 167:591–598PubMedCrossRef
7.
Schaefer FK, Schaefer PJ, Altjohann C et al (2007) A multicenter, site-independent, blinded study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography using 1.0M gadobutrol (Gadovist) to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography in body arteries. Eur J Radiol 61:315–323PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P et al (2002) Using highly concentrated gadobutrol as an MR contrast agent in patients also requiring hemodialysis: safety and dialysability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:105–109PubMedCrossRef
9.
Tombach B, Heindel W (2002) Value of 1.0- M gadolinium chelates: review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 12:1550–1556PubMedCrossRef
10.
Hammerstingl R, Adam G, Ayuso JR et al (2009) Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in five hundred seventy-two patients with known or suspected liver lesions: results of a multicenter, double-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase-III trial. Invest Radiol 44:168–176PubMedCrossRef
11.
Tombach B, Bohndorf K, Brodtrager W et al (2008) Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial. Eur Radiol 18:2610–2619PubMedCrossRef
12.
Goyen M, Lauenstein TC, Herborn CU, Debatin JF, Bosk S, Ruehm SG (2001) 0.5 M Gd chelate (Magnevist) versus 1.0 M Gd chelate (Gadovist): dose-independent effect on image quality of pelvic three-dimensional MR-angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 14:602–607PubMedCrossRef
13.
Vosshenrich R, Engeroff B, Obenauer S, Grabbe E (2003) Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the arterial and portovenous system of the liver with varying concentrations of contrast medium. Rofo 175:1239–1243PubMedCrossRef
14.
Anzalone N, Scarabino T, Venturi C et al (2013) Cerebral neoplastic enhancing lesions: Multicenter, randomized, crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol (1.0 M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5 M) at 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol 82:139–145PubMedCrossRef
15.
Katakami N, Inaba Y, Sugata S et al (2011) Magnetic resonance evaluation of brain metastasis from systemic malignancies with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 m compared with gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase II/III study in patients with known or suspected brain metastasis. Invest Radiol 46:411–418PubMedCrossRef
16.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur J Radiol 66:160–167PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hadizadeh DR, Von Falkenhausen M, Kukuk GM et al (2010) Contrast material for abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with parallel imaging: intraindividual equimolar comparison of a macrocyclic 1.0 M gadolinium chelate and a linear ionic 0.5 M gadolinium chelate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:821–829PubMedCrossRef
19.
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 50:933–940PubMedCrossRef
20.
Attenberger UI, Runge VM, Jackson CB et al (2009) Comparative evaluation of lesion enhancement using 1 M gadobutrol vs. 2 conventional gadolinium chelates, all at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg, in a rat brain tumor model at 3 T. Invest Radiol 44:251–256PubMedCrossRef
21.
Akeson P, Larsson EM, Kristoffersen DT, Jonsson E, Holtăs S (1995) Brain metastasis—comparison of gadodiamide injection-enhanced MR imaging at standard and high dose, contrast-enhanced CT and non-contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acta Radiol 36:300–306PubMedCrossRef
22.
Tatsuno S, Hata Y, Tada S (1996) Double-dose gadolinium DTPA: detectability of intraparenchymal brain metastasis. Nihon Igaku Gakkai Zasshi 56:855–859
23.
Idee JM, Port M, Raynal I, Schaefer M, Le Greneur S, Corot C (2006) Clinical and biological consequences of transmetallation induced by contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging: a review. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 20:563–576PubMedCrossRef
24.
Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H, Hutter J, Weinmann HJ (2008) Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 43:817–828PubMedCrossRef
25.
Engelhorn T, Schwarz MA, Eyupoglu IY, Kloska SP, Struffert T, Doerffler A (2010) Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma an intra-individual comparative study to assess the optimal time delay. Acad Radiol 17:188–193PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
M. Koenig
G. Schulte-Altedorneburg
M. Piontek
A. Hentsch
P. Spangenberg
C. Schwenke
A. Harders
L. Heuser
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2946-3

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

European Radiology 12/2013 Go to the issue

Radiological Education

An Editor's journey: 6 years with European Radiology

Oncology

Locally advanced rectal cancer: is diffusion weighted MRI helpful for the identification of complete responders (ypT0N0) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy?

Neuro

Neuroimaging of dementia in 2013: what radiologists need to know

Musculoskeletal

Proton-density fat fraction and simultaneous R2* estimation as an MRI tool for assessment of osteoporosis

Urogenital

Acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnancy: ESUR recommendations

Computed Tomography

Radiation dose to procedural personnel and patients from an X-ray volume imaging system