Advertisement

Neuroradiology

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 433–441 | Cite as

Gadolinium deposition within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents—current status

  • Dragan Stojanov
  • Aleksandra Aracki-Trenkic
  • Daniela Benedeto-Stojanov
Invited Review

Abstract

Introduction

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have been used clinically since 1988 for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI). Generally, GBCAs are considered to have an excellent safety profile. However, GBCA administration has been associated with increased occurrence of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with severely compromised renal function, and several studies have shown evidence of gadolinium deposition in specific brain structures, the globus pallidus and dentate nucleus, in patients with normal renal function.

Methods

Gadolinium deposition in the brain following repeated CE-MRI scans has been demonstrated in patients using T1-weighted unenhanced MRI and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Additionally, rodent studies with controlled GBCA administration also resulted in neural gadolinium deposits.

Results

Repeated GBCA use is associated with gadolinium deposition in the brain. This is especially true with the use of less-stable, linear GBCAs. In spite of increasing evidence of gadolinium deposits in the brains of patients after multiple GBCA administrations, the clinical significance of these deposits continues to be unclear.

Conclusion

Here, we discuss the current state of scientific evidence surrounding gadolinium deposition in the brain following GBCA use, and the potential clinical significance of gadolinium deposition. There is considerable need for further research, both to understand the mechanism by which gadolinium deposition in the brain occurs and how it affects the patients in which it occurs.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Gadolinium deposition Contrast media Globus pallidus Dentate nucleus 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

We declare that this manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kanal E, Maravilla K, Rowley HA (2014) Gadolinium contrast agents for CNS imaging: current concepts and clinical evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:2215–2226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou Z, Lu ZR (2013) Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance cancer imaging. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 5:1–18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giesel F, Mehndiratta A, Essig M (2010) High-relaxivity contrast enhanced magnetic resonance neuroimaging: a review. Eur Radiol 20:2461–2474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grobner T (2006) Gadolinium—a specific trigger of development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:1104–1108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marckmann P, Skov L, Rosen K et al (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2359–2362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H et al (2014) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270:834–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Errante Y, Cirimele V, Mallio CA et al (2014) Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Investig Radiol 49:685–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kanda T, Osawa M, Oba H et al (2015) High signal intensity in dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: association with linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelate administration. Radiology 275:800–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quattrocchi CC, Malio CA, Errante Y et al (2015) Gadodiamide and dentate nucleus T1 hyperintensity in patients with meningioma evaluated by multiple follow-up contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance examinations with no systemic interval therapy. Investig Radiol 50:470–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ et al (2015) Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 275:783–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF et al (2015) Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 275:772–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stojanov DA, Aracki-Trenkic A, Vojinovic S, Benedeto-Stojanov D, Jubisavljevic S (2015) Increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W magnetic resonance images in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlation with cumulative dose of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent, gadobutrol. Eur Radiol.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M, Toyoda K, Oba H, Kotoku J, Haruvama T, Kitajima K, Furui S (2015) Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 276(1):228–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramalho J, Castillo M, AlObaidy M, Nunes RH, Ramalho M, Dale BM, Semelka RC (2015) High signal intensity in globus pallidus and dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: evaluation of two linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 276(3):836–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weberling L, Kieslich P, Kickingereder P et al (2015) Increased signal intensity in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted images after gadobenate dimeglumine administration. Investig Radiol 50(11):743–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberts D and Holden K (2015) Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain Dev.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radbruch A, Weberling L, Kieslich P et al (2015) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images. Investig Radiol 50(12):805–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cao Y, Huang DQ, Shih G, Prince MR (2016) Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopenetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(2):414–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robert P, Lehericy S, Grand S, Violas X, Fratellier N, Idee JM, Ballet S, Corot C (2015) T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats. Investig Radiol 50(8):473–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robert P, Violas X, Grand S, et al. (2015) Linear gadolinium-based contrast agents are associated with brain gadolinium retention in healthy rats. Invest Radiol.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jost G, Lenhard DC, Sieber MA et al (2016) Signal increase on unenhanced T1-weighted images in the Rat brain after repeated, extended doses of gadolinium-based contrast agents: comparison of linear and macrocyclic agents. Investig Radiol 51(2):83–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Hao D, Ai T, Goerner F, Hu X, Runge VM, Tweedle M (2012) MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 36(5):1060–1071CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bellin MF, Van der Molen AJ (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur Radiol 66:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caravan P, Ellison JJ, Mcmurry TJ, Lauferr JB (1999) Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structures, dynamics and applications. Chem Rev 99:2293–2352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bellin MF, Vasile M, Morel-Prtecetti S (2003) Currently used non-specific extracellular MR contrast media. Eur Radiol 13:2688–2698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aime S, Caravan P (2009) Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1259–1267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pietsch H, Lengsfeld P, Jost G et al (2009) Long term retention of gadolinium in the skin of following the administration of gadolinium based contrast agents. Eur Radiol 19:1417–1424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pirovano G, Munley J, Schultz C et al (2012) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a review of published cases and results from three prospective observational studies. Insights Imaging 3(suppl 1):S293Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin DR, Krishnamoorthy SK, Kalb B et al (2010) Decreased incidence of NSF in patients on dialysis after changing gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI protocols. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:440–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bennett CL, Qureshi ZP, Sartor AO et al (2012) Gadolinium-induced nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: the rise and fall of an iatrogenic disease. Clin Kidney J 5:82–88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abujudeh HH, Kosaraju VK, Kaewlai R (2010) Acute adverse reactions to gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobenate dimeglumine: experience with 21,659 injections. AJR Am J Roentgentol 194:430–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Version 10.1. 2015. http://www.acr.org
  34. 34.
    Bruder O, Schneider S, Nothnagel D et al (2011) Acute adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents in CMR: multicenter experience with 17,767 patients from the EuroCMR Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 4:1171–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW (2001) Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1385–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Forsting M, Palkowitsch P (2010) Prevalence of acute adverse reactions to gadobutrol: a highly concentrated macrocyclic gadolinium chelate: review of 14,299 patients from observational trials. Eur J Radiol 74:e186–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Murphy KP, Szopinski KT, Cohal RH et al (1999) Occurrence of adverse reactions to gadolinium-based contrast material and management of patients at increased risk: a survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Fellowship Directors. Acad Radiol 6:656–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li A, Wong CS, Wong MK et al (2006) Acute adverse reactions to magnetic resonance contrast media: gadolinium chelates. Br J Radiol 79:368–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH et al (2007) Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing I.V. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1533–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hunt CH, Hartman RP, Hesley GK (2009) Frequency and severity of adverse effects of iodinated and gadolinium contrast materials: retrospective review of 456,930 doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1124–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prince MR, Zhang H, Zou Z et al (2011) Incidence of immediate gadolinium contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W138–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jung JW, Kang HR, Kim MH et al (2012) Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology 264:414–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vervloet D, Durham S (1998) Adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 316:1511–14CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hasdenteufel F, Luyasu S, Renaudin JM et al (2008) Anaphylactic shock after first exposure to gadoterate meglumine: two case reports documented by positive allergy assessment. J Allergy Clin Immunol 121:527–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schiavino D, Murzilli F, Del Ninno M et al (2003) Demonstration of an IgE-mediated immunological pathogenesis of a severe reaction to gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 13:140–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fakhran S, Alhilali L, Kale H, Kanal E (2015) Assessment of rates of acute adverse reactions to gadobenate dimeglumine: review of more than 130,000 administrations in 7.5 years. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(4):703–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beomonte Zobel B, Quattrocchi CC, Errante Y, Grasso RF (2015) Gadolinium-based contrast agents: did we miss something in the last 25 years? Radiol MedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ramalho J, Semelka RC, Ramalho M, et al. (2015) Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J NeuroradiolGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thomsen HS (2016) T1 hyperintensity in the brain after multiple intravenous injections of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Acta RadiolGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Runge VM (2015) Macrocyclic versus linear gadolinium chelates. Investig Radiol 50(12):811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Agris J, Pietsch H, and Balzer T (2015) What evidence is there that gadobutrol causes increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W MRI in patients with RRMS? Eur RadiolGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stojanov D (2015) Reply to Letter to the Editor re: Increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W magnetic resonance images in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlation with cumulative dose of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent, gadobutrol. Eur RadiolGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bussi S, Fouillet X, Morisetti A (2007) Toxicological assessment of gadolinium release from contrast media. Exp Toxicol Pathol 58:323–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sieber MA, Pietsch H, Walter J et al (2008) Preclinical investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in-vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosis-like lesions. Eur Radiol 18:2164–2173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Frenzel T, Lengsfeld P, Schirmer H et al (2008) Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Investig Radiol 43:817–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Idée JM, Port M, Dencausse A et al (2009) Involvement of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an update. Radiol Clin North Am 47:855–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    White GW, Gibby WA, Tweedle MF (2006) Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) relative to gadolinium retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Investig Radiol 41(3):272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Darrah TH, Prutsman-Pfeiffer JJ, Poreda RJ, Ellen Campbell M, Hauschka PV, Hannigan RE (2009) Incorporation of excess gadolinium into human bone from medical contrast agents. Metallomics 1(6):479–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ogi S, Fukumitsu N, Tsuchida D, Uchiyama M, Mori Y, Matsui K (2002) Imaging of bilateral striopallidodentate calcinosis. Clin Nucl Med 27(10):721–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tabanor K, Lee P, Kiptoo P, et al. (2016) Brain delivery of drug and MRI contrast agent: detection and quantitative determination of brain deposition of CPT-Glu using LC-MS/MS and Gd-DTPA using magnetic resonance imaging. Mol PharmGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Runge VM (2015) Commentary on T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats. Investig Radiol 50(8):481–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sanyal S, Marckmann P, Scherer S et al (2011) Multiorgan gadolinium (Gd) deposition and fibrosis in a patient with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis—an autopsy-based review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:3616–3626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Roccatagliata L, Vuolo L, Bonzano L et al (2009) Multiple sclerosis: hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted images is associated with the secondary progressive subtype. Radiology 251:503–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    LeVine SM (1997) Iron deposits in multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease brains. Brain Res 760:298–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chan DE, Pan HC, Ho DM et al (2007) Presence of activated microglia in a high-signal lesion on T1-weighted MR images: a biopsy sample re-examined. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:602Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Drayer B, Burger P, Hurwitz B et al (1987) Reduced signal intensity on MR images of thalamus and putamen in multiple sclerosis: increased iron content? AJR Am J Roentgenol 149:357–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Brass SD, Chen NK, Mulkern NV, Bakshi R (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging of iron deposition in neurological disorders. Top Magn Reson Imaging 17:31–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Drayer BP, Burger P, Hurwtz B et al (1987) Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis: decreased signal in thalamus and putamen. Ann Neurol 22:546–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Craelius W, Migdal MW, Luessenhop CP et al (1982) Iron deposits surrounding multiple sclerosis plaques. Arch Pathol Lab Med 106:397–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shin JC, Kim E, Sheong HK et al (2007) High signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of neurobehavioral performance of workers exposed to manganese. Neurotoxicology 28:257–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fujioka M, Taoka T, Matsuo Y et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging shows delayed ischemic striatal neurodegeneration. Ann Neurol 54:732–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Powell T, Sussman JG, Davies-Jones GA (1992) MR imaging in acute multiple sclerosis: ring-like appearance in plaque suggesting the presence of paramagnetic free radicals. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 13:1544–1546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Terada H, Barkovich AJ, Edwards MS, Ciricillo SM (1996) Evolution of high-intensity basal ganglia lesions on T1-weighted MR in neurofibromatosis type 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 17:755–760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Daszkiewicz OK, Hennel JW, Szczepkowski TW, Lubas B (1963) Proton magnetic relaxation and protein hydration. Nature 200:1006–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Henkelman RM, Watts JF, Kucharzyk W (1991) High signal intensity in MR images of calcified brain tissue. Radiology 179:199–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Boyko OB, Burger PC, Shelburne JD, Ingram P (1992) Non-heme mechanisms for T1 shortening: pathologic, CT, and MR elucidation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 13:1439–1445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Warakaulle DR, Anslow P (2003) Differential diagnosis of intracranial lesions with high signal on T1 or low signal on T-2 weighted MRI. Clin Radiol 58:922–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Suzuki S, Nishio S, Takata K et al (2000) Radiation-induced brain calcification: paradoxical high signal intensity in T1-weighted images. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:801–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Weinmann HJ, Gries H, Speck U (1992) Fundamental physics and chemistry: types of contrast agents. In: Sartor K (ed) MR imaging of the skull and brain: a correlative text atlas. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 26–28Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hegde A, Mohan S, Lath N, Lim CCT (2011) Differential diagnosis for bilateral abnormalities of basal ganglia and thalamus. Radiographics 31:5–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kim TJ, Kim TO, Kim WS et al (2006) MR imaging of the brain in Wilson disease of childhood: findings before and after treatment with clinical correlation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2(6):1373–1378Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Lai PH, Chen C, Liang HL, Pan HB (1999) Hyperintense basal ganglia on T1-weighted MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 172(4):1109–1115Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Valdés Hernández Mdel C, Maconick LC, Tan EM, Wardlaw JM (2012) Identification of mineral deposits in the brain on radiological images: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 22(11):2371–2381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Brunberg JA, Kanal E, Hirsch W, Van Thiel DH (1991) Chronic acquired hepatic failure: MR imaging of the brain at 1.5 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 12(5):909–914PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rovira A, Alonso J, Cordoba J (2008) MR imaging findings in hepatic encephalopathy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 29(9):1612–1621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Oikonomu A, Chatzistefanou A, Zezos P et al (2012) Basal ganglia hyperintensity on T1-weighted MRI in Rendu-Osler-Weber disease. J Magn Res Imaging 35(2):426–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mirowitz SA, Westicks TJ, Hirsch JD (1991) Hyperintense basal ganglia on T1-weighted MR images in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. Radiology 181(1):117–120Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    da Silva CJ, da Rocha AJ, Jeronymo S et al (2007) A preliminary study revealing a new association in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: manganism symptoms and T1 hyperintense changes in the basal ganglia. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28(8):1474–1479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Martin-Duverneuil N, Idbaih A, Hoang-Xuan K et al (2006) MRI features of neurodegenerative Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Eur Radiol 16(9):2074–2082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of NisNisSerbia
  2. 2.Center for RadiologyNisSerbia

Personalised recommendations