American Journal of Neuroradiology
DOI 10.3174/ajnr.A1185
BRAIN
Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging of Brain Lesions: A Large-Scale Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine versus Gadodiamide
From the Department of Radiology (H.A.R.), University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis; Servizio di Neuroradiologia (G.S.), Ospedale Niguarda Ca' Granda, Milano, Italy; Beijing Tian Tan Hospital: No. 6 (P.-y.G.), Beijing, China; Department of Radiology (J.A.M.), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Sunbelt Research Group, LLC (D.H.), Mobile, Ala; Department of Radiology (M.J.K.), Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Ill: Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (F.J.W.II), Washington University, St. Louis, Mo; Servizio di Risonanza Magnetica (M.G.), Ospedale Nuovo S. Salvatore, L'Aquila AQ, Italy; Department. of Radiology (B.C.B.), University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Fla; Neuroradiology Research (I.M.S.), University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla; Department. of Neuroradiology (J.R.), Hospital de la Santa Cruz y San Pablo, Barcelona, Spain; Fondazione Istituto Neurologico Casimiro Mondino (S.B.), Pavia, Italy; and Department of Bioimaging and Radiological Sciences (C.C.), University Hospital "A. Gemelli", Rome, Italy.
Please address correspondence to Howard A. Rowley, MD, University of Wisconsin, Department of Radiology, 600 Highland Ave, Box 3252, Madison, WI 53792-3252; e-mail: hrowley{at}uwhealth.org
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The higher relaxivity of gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide is potentially advantageous for contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging. This study intraindividually compared 0.1-mmol/kg doses of these agents for qualitative and quantitative lesion enhancement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with suggested or known brain lesions underwent 2 identical MR imaging examinations at 1.5T, one with gadobenate dimeglumine and the other with gadodiamide. The agents were administered in randomized order separated by 3–14 days. Imaging sequences and postinjection acquisition timing were identical for the 2 examinations. Three blinded readers evaluated images qualitatively for diagnostic information (lesion extent, delineation, morphology, enhancement, and global preference) and quantitatively for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR).
RESULTS: One hundred thirteen of 138 enrolled patients successfully underwent both examinations. Final diagnoses were intra-axial tumor, metastasis, extra-axial tumor, or other (47, 27, 18, and 21 subjects, respectively). Readers 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated global preference for gadobenate dimeglumine in 63 (55.8%), 77 (68.1%), and 73 (64.6%) patients, respectively, compared with 3, 2, and 3 patients for gadodiamide (P < .0001, all readers). Highly significant (P < .0001, all readers) preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all qualitative end points and for CNR (increases of 23.3%–34.7% and 42.4%–48.9% [spin-echo and gradient-refocused echo sequences, respectively] for gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide). Inter-reader agreement was good for all evaluations (
= 0.47–0.69). Significant preference for gadobenate dimeglumine was demonstrated for all lesion subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSION: Significantly greater diagnostic information and lesion enhancement are achieved on brain MR imaging with 0.1-mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine compared with gadodiamide at an equivalent dose.