Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inter- and intra-individual comparative study of two gadolinium-based agents: A pilot study

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the acute adverse events rate and enhancement properties of gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem®) and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance®) in a small-scale controlled double-blinded study, using inter- and intra-individual comparisons.

Materials and Methods

Forty-one randomly selected patients were scanned with Dotarem®. The rate of adverse reactions, qualitative and quantitative image evaluation was performed vs. a control group of 46 patients who underwent MultiHance® over the same 1-month time period (population 1), and 27 patients who underwent both Dotarem® and MultiHance®-enhanced body MRI studies within an 18-month period (population 2). Data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Results

Only 1 mild acute adverse event (vomiting) was observed in population 1 (with Dotarem®). Blinded assessment of image quality was good for both agents in all patients. Population 1 showed significantly higher liver percentage enhancement with MultiHance® (p < 0.0001). There was a trend to higher pancreas-to-liver enhancement with Dotarem®, significant in population 2 (p = 0.0333).

Conclusion

This small-scale multi-blinded study characterizes a strategy to objectively assess intravenous contrast agents, which may be an ideal method to evaluate whether a new contrast agent should be introduced for clinical use at any institution, and to re-evaluate the agent in standard use. Whenever available, intra-individual assessment may be ideal.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balci NC, Semelka RC (2005) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver. Radiol Clin North Am 43:887–898. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2005.05.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhou Z, Lu Z-R (2013) Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance cancer imaging. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 5:1–18. doi:10.1002/wnan.1198

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ (2007) Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:1190–1197. doi:10.1002/jmri.21135

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vogl TJ, Kummel S, Hammerstingl R, et al. (1996) Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA. Radiology 200:59–67. doi:10.1148/radiology.200.1.8657946

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuwatsuru R, Kadoya M, Ohtomo K, et al. (2001) Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine with gadopentetate dimeglumine for magnetic resonance imaging of liver tumors. Invest Radiol 36:632–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 18:2610–2619. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1054-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhn J-P, Hegenscheid K, Siegmund W, et al. (2009) Normal dynamic MRI enhancement patterns of the upper abdominal organs: gadoxetic acid compared with gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1318–1323. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hammerstingl R, Adam G, Ayuso J-R, 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 44:168–176. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e318198a0ae

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238:780–789. doi:10.1148/radiol.2383041109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Weber JCP (1984) Epidemiology of adverse reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, vol 6. In: Rainsford KD, Velo GP (ed). Raven Press, New York, pp 1–7

  11. Lalli AF (1974) Urographic contrast media reactions and anxiety. Radiology 112:267–271. doi:10.1148/112.2.267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lalli AF (1980) Contrast media reactions: data analysis and hypothesis. Radiology 134:1–12. doi:10.1148/radiology.134.1.6985735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Semelka RC, Hernandes M de A, Stallings CG, Castillo M (2013) Objective evaluation of acute adverse events and image quality of gadolinium-based contrast agents (gadobutrol and gadobenate dimeglumine) by blinded evaluation. Pilot study. Magn Reson Imaging 31:96–101. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.025

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goncalves Neto JA, Altun E, Vaidean G, et al. (2009) Early contrast enhancement of the liver: exact description of subphases using MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 27:792–800. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2008.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Runge VM, Kenney CM (2000) Phase II double-blind, dose-ranging clinical evaluation of gadobenate dimeglumine in focal liver lesions: with analysis of liver and kidney signal change on early and delayed imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 11:655–664. doi:10.1002/1522-2586(200006)11:6<655::AID-JMRI12>3.0.CO;2-H

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneider G, Maas R, Schultze Kool L, et al. (2003) Low-dose gadobenate dimeglumine versus standard dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the liver: an intra-individual crossover comparison. Invest Radiol 38:85–94. doi:10.1097/01.RLI.0000044931.26224.F9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nural MS, Gokce E, Danaci M, Bayrak IK, Diren HB (2008) Focal liver lesions: whether a standard dose (0.05 mmol/kg) gadobenate dimeglumine can provide the same diagnostic data as the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Eur J Radiol 66:65–74. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chu LL, Joe BN, Westphalen ACA, et al. (2007) Patient-specific time to peak abdominal organ enhancement varies with time to peak aortic enhancement at MR imaging. Radiology 245:779–787. doi:10.1148/radiol.2451061585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33(2):363–374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Core Team R (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, 3rd edn. Vienna: Austria

    Google Scholar 

  21. Runge VM, Knopp MV (1999) Off-label use and reimbursement of contrast media in MR. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:489–495. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<489::AID-JMRI35>3.0.CO;2-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maurer M, Heine O, Wolf M, et al. (2012) Tolerability and diagnostic value of gadoteric acid in the general population and in patients with risk factors: results in more than 84,000 patients. Eur J Radiol 81:885–890. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Herborn CU, Honold E, Wolf M, et al. (2007) Clinical safety and diagnostic value of the gadolinium chelate gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA). Invest Radiol 42:58–62

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ishiguchi T, Takahashi S (2010) Safety of gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA) as a contrast agent for magnetic resonance imaging: results of a post-marketing surveillance study in Japan. Drugs R D 10:133–145. doi:10.2165/11539140-000000000-00000

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Herborn CU, Jager-Booth I, Lodemann KP, Spinazzi A, Goyen M (2009) Multicenter analysis of tolerance and clinical safety of the extracellular MR contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance). Rofo 181:652–657. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oudkerk M, Sijens PE, Van Beek EJ, Kuijpers TJ (1995) Safety and efficacy of dotarem (Gd-DOTA) versus magnevist (Gd-DTPA) in magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. Invest Radiol 30:75–78

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim MJ, Kim SH, Kim HJ, et al. (2013) Enhancement of liver and pancreas on late hepatic arterial phase imaging: quantitative comparison among multiple gadolinium-based contrast agents at 1.5 tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:102–108. doi:10.1002/jmri.23934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim HJ, Kim BS, Kim MJ, et al. (2012) Enhancement of the liver and pancreas in the hepatic arterial dominant phase: comparison of hepatocyte-specific MRI contrast agents, gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine, on 3 and 1.5 tesla MRI in the same patient. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:903–908. doi:10.1002/jmri.23874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Murphy KP, Szopinski KT, Cohan RH, Mermillod B, Ellis JH (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 6:656–664. doi:10.1016/S1076-6332(99)80114-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shellock FG, Spinazzi A (2008) MRI safety update 2008: part 1, MRI contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1129–1139. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1038.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure

Kyung Sook Shin, MD, Mamdoh AlObaidy, MD, Miguel Ramalho, MD, Yong Hwan Jeon, MD, Lauren M. Burke, MD, Ersan Altun, MD, Clifton G. Stallings, RT declares none, Richard C. Semelka, MD has Research support, Siemens AG; Consultant, Guerbet SA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2022 Old Clinic Bldg., CB 7510, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7510, USA

    Kyung Sook Shin, Mamdoh AlObaidy, Miguel Ramalho, Yong Hwan Jeon, Lauren M. Burke, Ersan Altun, Clifton G. Stallings & Richard C. Semelka

Authors
  1. Kyung Sook Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mamdoh AlObaidy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel Ramalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yong Hwan Jeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lauren M. Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ersan Altun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Clifton G. Stallings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Richard C. Semelka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard C. Semelka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shin, K.S., AlObaidy, M., Ramalho, M. et al. Inter- and intra-individual comparative study of two gadolinium-based agents: A pilot study. Abdom Imaging 40, 865–874 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0248-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0248-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation