Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gadolinium-based contrast agents in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging

  • Minisymposium: MR techniques in pediatric radiology
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents can increase the accuracy and expediency of an MRI examination. However the benefits of a contrast-enhanced scan must be carefully weighed against the well-documented risks associated with administration of exogenous contrast media. The purpose of this review is to discuss commercially available gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) in the context of pediatric radiology. We discuss the chemistry, regulatory status, safety and clinical applications, with particular emphasis on imaging of the blood vessels, heart, hepatobiliary tree and central nervous system. We also discuss non-GBCA MRI contrast agents that are less frequently used or not commercially available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bhargava R, Hahn G, Hirsch W et al (2013) Contrast-enhanced magnetric resonance imaging in pediatric patients: review and recommendations for current practice. Magn Reson Insights 6:95–111

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Young IR (2000) Methods in biomedical magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edelman GM, Hesselink JR, Zlatkin MB et al (2006) Clinical magnetic resonance imaging — volume 3. Elsevier Health, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boros E, Gale EM, Caravan P (2015) MR imaging probes: design and applications. Dalton Trans 44:4804–4818

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Carr DH, Bydder GM, Weinmann H-J et al (1984) Intravenous chelated gadolinium as a contrast agent in NMR imaging of cerebral tumors. Lancet 323:484–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ et al (1999) Gadolinium(III) chelates as MRI contrast agents: structure, dynamics and applications. Chem Rev 99:2293–2352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Caravan P, Farrar CT, Frullano L et al (2009) Influence of molecular parameters and increasing magnetic field strength on relaxivity of gadolinium- and manganese-based T1-contrast agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 4:89–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gale EM, Atanasova I, Blasi F et al (2015) A manganese alternative to gadolinium for MRI contrast. J Am Chem Soc 137:15548–15557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Caravan P (2006) Strategies for increasing the sensitivity of gadolinium based MRI contrast agents. Chem Soc Rev 35:512–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Caravan P (2009) Protein-targeted gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents: design and mechanism of action. Acc Chem Res 42:851–862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Caravan P, Cloutier NJ, Greenfield MT et al (2002) The interaction of MS-325 with human serum albumin and its effect on proton relaxation rates. J Am Chem Soc 124:3152–3162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vander Elst L, Chapelle F, Laurent S et al (2001) Stereospecific binding of MRI contrast agents to human serum albumin: the case of Gd-(S)-EOB-DTPA (Eovist) and its ® isomer. J Biol Inorg Chem 6:196–200

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shen Y, Goerner FL, Snyder C et al (2015) T1 Relaxivities of Gadolinium-Based Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agents in Human Whole Blood at 1.5, 3, and 7 T. Investig Radiol 50:330–338

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morcos SK (2008) Extracellular gadolinium contrast agents: Differences in stability. Eur J Radiol 66:175–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Laurent S, Vander Elst L, Henoumon C et al (2010) How to measure the transmetallation of a gadolinium complex. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 5:305–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Laurent S, Vander Elst L, Copoix F et al (2001) Stability of MRI paramagnetic contrast media: a proton relaxometric protocol for transmetallation assessment. Investig Radiol 36:115–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Aime S, Caravan P (2009) Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Res Imaging 30:1259–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jung G, Heindel W, Krahe T et al (1998) Influence of the hepatobiliary contrast agent mangafodipir trisodium (MN-DPDP) on the imaging properties of abdominal organs. Magn Reson Imaging 16:925–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelson SJ, Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB et al (2013) Metabolic imaging of patients with prostate cancer using hyperpolarized [1-13C]pyruvate. Sci Transl Med 5:198ra108

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sieber MA, Steger-Hartmann T, Lengsfeld P et al (2009) Gadolinium-based contrast agents and NSF: evidence from animal experience. J Magn Res Imaging 30:1268–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 51:83–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson P (2015) FDA okays MRI contrast agent (Gadavist) in infants. Medscape. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837629. Accessed 15 December 2016

  23. Ellis JH, Davenport MS, Dillman JR et al (2015) ACR manual on contrast media v10.1. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  24. Grobner T (2006) Gadolinium — a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:1104–1108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K et al (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:2359–2362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2009) Joint meeting of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: FDA briefing document. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/DrugSafetyandRiskManagementAdvisoryCommittee/UCM190850.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2016

  27. Yang L, Krefting I, Gorovets A et al (2012) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and class labeling of gadolinium-based contrast agents by the Food and Drug Administration. Radiology 265:248–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swan SK, Lambrecht LJ, Townsend R et al (1999) Safety and pharmacokinetic profile of gadobenate dimeglumine in subjects with renal impairment. Investig Radiol 34:443–448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Marcos SK, Thomsen HS, Dawson P (2006) Is there a causal relation between the administration of gadolinium based contrast media and the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF)? Clin Radiol 61:905–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Swan SK, Baker JF, Free R et al (1999) Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of gadoversetamide injection (OptiMARK) in subjects with central nervous system or liver pathology and varying degrees of renal function. J Magn Res Imaging 9:317–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Krestin G (1991) Pharmacokinetics of Gd-DTPA in patients with chronic renal failure. Investig Radiol 26:975–979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. European Medicines Agency (2010) Assessment report for gadolinium-containing contrast agents. Procedure no. EMEA/H/A-31/1097. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Referrals_document/gadolinium_31/WC500099538.pdf. Accessed 15 December 2016

  33. Davenport MS, Dillman JR, Cohan RH et al (2013) Effect of abrupt substitution of gadobenate dimeglumine for gadopentetate dimeglumine on rate of allergic-like reactions. Radiology 266:773–782

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Hahn G, Sorge I, Gruhn B et al (2009) Pharmacokinetics and safety of gadobutrol-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients. Investig Radiol 44:776–783

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kunze CW, Mentel H-J, Krishnamurthy R et al (2016) Pharmacokinetics and safety of macrocyclic gadobutrol in children aged younger than 2 years including term newborns in comparison to older populations. Investig Radiol 51:50–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kanda T, Kawaguchi H (2013) Hyperintense dentate nucleas and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images are associated with gadolinium-based contrast media. Neuroradiology 55:1268–1269

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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 270:834–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M et al (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 276:228–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kanda T, Osawa M, Oba H et al (2015) High signal intensity in dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: association with linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelate administration. Radiology 275:803–809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 275:783–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Miller JH, Houchun HH, Pokorney A et al (2015) MRI brain signal intensity changes of a child during the course of 35 gadolinium contrast examinations. Pediatrics 136:e1637–e1640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K et al (2016) Macrocyclic and other non–group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Investig Radiol 51:447–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Maximova N, Gregori M, Zennaro F et al (2016) Hepatic gadolinium deposition and reversibility after contrast agent-enhanced MR imaging of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Radiology 281:418–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, John P et al (2015) Pediatric body MR angiography: principles, techniques, and current status in body imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:173–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Grist TM, Thornton FJ (2005) Magnetic resonance angiography in children: technique, indications, and imaging findings. Pediatr Radiol 35:26–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Miyazaki M, Akahane M (2012) Non-contrast enhanced MR angiography: established techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chung T (2005) Magnetic resonance angiography of the body in pediatric patients: experience with a contrast-enhanced time-resolved technique. Pediatr Radiol 35:3–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G et al (1999) Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology 212:876–884

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cornfield D, Mojibian H (2009) Clinical uses of time-resolved imaging in the body and peripheral vascular system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:W546–W557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lewis M, Yanny S, Malcolm PN (2012) Advantages of blood pool contrast agents in MR angiography: a pictorial review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56:187–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Krishnamurthy R, Bahouth SM, Muthapillai R (2016) 4D contrast-enhanced MR angiography with the keyhole technique in children: technique and clinical applications. Radiographics 36:14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sundareswaran K, Frakes D, d Zelicourt D et al (2008) Comparison of power losses, hepatic flow splits, and vortex sizes in different fontan types using non invasive phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 118:S1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Makowski M, Wiethoff A, Uribe S et al (2011) Congenital heart disease: cardiovascular MR imaging by using an intravascular blood pool contrast agent. Radiology 260:680–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hsiao A, Lustig M, Alley M et al (2012) Rapid pediatric cardiac assessment of flow and ventricular volume with compressed sensing parallel imaging volumetric cine phase-contrast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W250–W259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Gabbour M, Schnell S, Jarvis K et al (2015) 4-D flow magnetic resonance imaging: blood flow quantification compared to 2-D phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging and Doppler echocardiography. Pediatr Radiol 45:804–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ordovas K, Higgins C (2011) Delayed contrast enhancement on MR images of myocardium: past, present, future. Radiology 261:358–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Simonetti O, Kim R, Fieno D et al (2001) An improved MR imaging technique for the visualization of myocardial infarction. Radiology 218:215–223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kellman P, Wilson J, Xue H et al (2012) Extracellular volume fraction mapping in the myocardium, part 1: evaluation of an automated method. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 14:63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Tandon A, Villa CR, Hor KN et al (2015) Myocardial fibrosis burden predicts left ventricular ejection fraction and is associated with age and steroid treatment duration in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. J Am Heart Assoc 4:e001338

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. O'Hanlon R, Grasso A, Roughton M et al (2010) Prognostic significance of myocardial fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:867–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Moon J, Messroghli D, Kellman P et al (2013) Myocardial T1 mapping and extracellular volume quantification: a Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) and CMR Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology consensus statement. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 15:92

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Gerber B, Raman S, Nayak K et al (2008) Myocardial first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance: history, theory, and current state of the art. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 10:18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Manso B, Castellote A, Dos L et al (2010) Myocardial perfusion magnetic resonance imaging for detecting coronary function anomalies in asymptomatic paediatric patients with a previous arterial switch operation for the transposition of great arteries. Cardiol Young 20:410–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Prakash A, Powell A, Krishnamurthy R et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of myocardial perfusion and viability in congenital and acquired pediatric heart disease. Am J Cardiol 93:657–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Friedrich M, Sechtem U, Schulz-Menger J et al (2009) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in myocarditis: a JACC white paper. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:1475–1487

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Banka P, Robinson J, Uppu S et al (2015) Cardiovascular magnetic resonance techniques and findings in children with myocarditis: a multicenter retrospective study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 17:96

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Ferreira V, Piechnik S, Dall'Armellina E et al (2012) T1-mapping has a high diagnostic performance in patients presenting with acute myocarditis: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Heart 98:A52–A53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ferreira V, Piechnik S, Dall'Armellina E et al (2013) T(1) mapping for the diagnosis of acute myocarditis using CMR: comparison to T2-weighted and late gadolinium enhanced imaging. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 6:1048–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S et al (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tran VT, Vasanawala S (2013) Pediatric hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 51:599–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Gupta S (2014) Gadolinium contrast agent selection and optimal use for body MR imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 52:637–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Nandwana SB, Moreno CC, Osipow MT et al (2015) Gadobenate dimeglumine administration and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: is there a real risk in patients with impaired renal function? Radiology 276:741–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lauenstein T, Ramirez-Garrido F, Kim YH et al (2015) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis risk after liver magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetate disodium in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment: results of a prospective, open-label, multicenter study. Investig Radiol 50:416–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vaneckova M, Herman M, Smith MP et al (2015) The benefits of high relaxivity for brain tumor imaging: results of a multicenter intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadoterate meglumine (The BENEFIT study). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1589–1598

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Rigsby CK, Popescu AR, Nelson P et al (2015) Safety of blood pool contrast agent administration in children and young adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1114–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rigsby CK, Hilpipre N, McNeal GR et al (2014) Analysis of an automated background correction method for cardiovascular MR phase contrast imaging in children and young adults. Pediatr Radiol 44:265–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Farmakis SG, Khanna G (2014) Extracardiac applications of MR blood pool contrast agent in children. Pediatr Radiol 44:1598–1609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Cha S (2006) Dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in pediatric patients. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 16:137–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wang Y-XJ, Hussain SM, KRestin GP (2001) Superparamaganetic iron oxide contrast agents: physicochemical characteristics and applications in MR imaging. Eur Radiol 11:2319–2331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Wang Y-XJ (2011) Superparamagnetic iron oxide based MRI contrast agents: current status of clinical application. Quant Imaging Med Surg 11:35–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Hope MD, Hope TA, Zhu C et al (2015) Vascular imaging with ferumoxytol as a contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W366–W374

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Bellin M-F, Roy C, Kinkel K et al (1998) Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MR imaging with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles —initial clinical experience. Radiology 207:799–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Li S-D, Huang L (2008) Pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of nanoparticles. Mol Pharm 5:496–504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Arami H, Khandhar A, Liggitt D et al (2015) In vivo delivery, pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles. Chem Sci Rev 44:8576–8607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Li W, Tutton S, Vu AT et al (2004) First-pass contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in humans using ferumoxytol, a novel ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide (USPIO)-based blood pool agent. J Magn Res Imaging 21:46–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Harisinghani MG, Berentsz J, Hahn PF et al (2003) Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 348:2491–2499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Heesakkers RAM, Jager GJ, Hövels AM et al (2009) Prostate cancer: detection of lymph node metastases outside the routine surgical area with ferumoxtran-10 - enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251:408–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Prince MR, Zhang HL, Chabra SG et al (2003) A pilot investigation of new superparamagnetic iron oxide (ferumoxytol) as a contrast agent for cardiovascular MRI. J Xray Sci Technol 11:231–240

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ruangwattanapaisarn N, Hsiao A, Vasanawala SS (2015) Ferumoxytol as an off-label contrast agent in body 3T MR angiography: a pilot study in children. Pediatr Radiol 45:831–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Luhar A, Khan S, Finn JP et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography in pediatric patients with chronic kidney disease: initial experience with ferumoxytol. Pediatr Radiol 46:1332–1340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Thompson EM, Guillaume DJ, Dósa E et al (2012) Dual contrast perfusion MRI in a single imaging session for assessment of pediatric brain tumors. J Neurooncol 109:105–114

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Schiller B, Bhat P, Sharma A (2014) Safety and effectiveness of ferumoxytol in hemodialysis patients at 3 dialysis chains in the United States over a 12-month period. Clin Ther 36:70–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Muehe AM, Fang D, von Eyben R et al (2016) Safety report of ferumoxytol for magnetic resonance imaging in children and young adults. Investig Radiol 51:221–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Lauffer RB (1987) Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chem Rev 87:901–927

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Elizondo G, Fretz CJ, Stark DD et al (1991) Preclinical evaluation of MnDPDP: new paramagnetic hepatobiliary contrast agent for MR imaging. Radiology 178:73–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hamm B, Vogl TJ, Branding G et al (1992) Focal liver lesions: MR imaging with MnDPDP initial clinical results in 40 patients. Radiology 182:167–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Vogl TJ, Hamm B, Schnell B et al (1993) Mn-DPDP enhancement patterns of hepatocellular lesions on MR images. J Magn Res Imaging 3:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Gallez B, Bacic G, Swartz HM (1996) Evidence for the dissociation of the hepatobiliary MRI contrast agent Mn-DPDP. Magn Reson Med 35:14–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Toft KG, Hustvedt SO, Grat D et al (1997) Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of MnDPDP in man. Acta Radiol 38:677–689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Crossgrove J, Zheng W (2004) Manganese toxicity upon overexposure. NMR Biomed 17:544–553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. O'Neal SL, Zheng W (2015) Manganese toxicity upon overexposure: a decade in review. Curr Environ Health Rep 2:315–328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Aschner JL, Aschner M (2005) Nutritional aspects of manganese homeostasis. Mol Asp Med 26:353–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Yang Y, Schühle DT, Dai G et al (2012) 1H chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging probes with high sensitivity for multiplex imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 7:276–279

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Harvey P, Blamire AM, Wilson JI et al (2013) Moving the goal posts: enhancing the sensitivity of PARASHIFT proton magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Chem Sci 4:4251–4258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Mizukami S, Takikawa R, Sugihara F et al (2008) Paramagnetic relaxation-based 19F MRI probe to detect protease activity. J Am Chem Soc 130:794–795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Tirotta I, Mastropietro A, Cordiglieri C et al (2014) A superfluorinated molecular probe for highly sensitive in vivo19F‐MRI. J Am Chem Soc 136:8524–8527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sherry AD, Woods M (2008) Chemical exchange saturation transfer contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 10:391–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Liu G, Gilad AA, Bulte JWM et al (2010) High-Throuput Screening of Chemical Exchange Saturation Transfer MR Contrast Agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 5:162–170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Brindle KM, Bohndiek SE, Gallagher FA, Kettunen MI (2011) Tumor imaging using hyperpolarized 13C magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 66(2):505–19

  110. Svenningsen S, Kirby M, Starr D et al (2013) Hyperpolarized 3He and 129Xe MRI: differences in asthma before bronchodilation. J Magn Res Imaging 38:1521–1530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Qing K, Ruppert K, Jiang Y et al (2014) Regional mapping of gas uptake by blood and tissue in the human lung using hyperpolarized xenon-129 MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:346–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, The Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Eric M. Gale & Peter Caravan

  2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Anil G. Rao

  3. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Robert J. McDonald

  4. University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Matthew Winfeld

  5. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Robert J. Fleck

  6. Division of Pediatric Imaging, Department of Radiology, MassGeneral Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Ellison 237, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Michael S. Gee

Authors
  1. Eric M. Gale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Caravan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anil G. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert J. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Winfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert J. Fleck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael S. Gee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Gee.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Gale has provided consulting services to Collagen Medical LLC, and has equity in Reveal Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr. Caravan has research funding from Pfizer, Biogen and Agilent, has provided consulting services to Guerbet, and has equity in Collagen Medical LLC, Factor 1A LLC and Reveal Pharmaceuticals Inc. Drs. Rao, McDonald, Winfeld, Fleck and Gee have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gale, E.M., Caravan, P., Rao, A.G. et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents in pediatric magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 47, 507–521 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3806-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3806-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation