OBJECTIVE: Two macrocyclic extracellular contrast agents, one-molar neutral gadobutrol and ionic gadoterate meglumine, were compared to determine the overall preference for one or the other in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, intra-individually controlled, comparison study with a corresponding blinded read. Efficacy analysis was based on 136 patients who underwent identical MRI examinations: group A first received 1.0M gadobutrol followed by 0.5M gadoterate meglumine 48h to 7 days later; group B had a reversed administration order. Three independent blinded readers assessed off-site their overall diagnostic preference (primary efficacy parameter) based on a matched pairs approach. RESULTS: Superiority of gadobutrol over gadoterate meglumine was demonstrated for the qualitative assessment of overall preference across all readers by a statistically significant difference between both contrast agents for this primary endpoint. Preferences in lesion enhancement (secondary endpoint) were also found significantly in favor of gadobutrol. For preference in lesion delineation from surrounding tissue/edema and for internal structure only a trend towards a higher proportion for gadobutrol was found (except for internal structure reported by one reader, which showed a result of statistical significance). Lesion contrast and relative lesion enhancement (quantitative parameters) were statistically significantly higher for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI of neoplastic brain lesions at a dose of 0.1mmolGd/kg body weight, assessed in a standardized off-site blinded reading, results in a significantly higher qualitative and quantitative preference for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine.

Cerebral neoplastic enhancing lesions: Multicenter, randomized, crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol (1.0M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5M) at 0.1mmolGd/kg body weight in a clinical setting

TARTARO, Armando;CARRIERO, Alessandro;COLOSIMO, Cesare
2013-01-01

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Two macrocyclic extracellular contrast agents, one-molar neutral gadobutrol and ionic gadoterate meglumine, were compared to determine the overall preference for one or the other in a clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, intra-individually controlled, comparison study with a corresponding blinded read. Efficacy analysis was based on 136 patients who underwent identical MRI examinations: group A first received 1.0M gadobutrol followed by 0.5M gadoterate meglumine 48h to 7 days later; group B had a reversed administration order. Three independent blinded readers assessed off-site their overall diagnostic preference (primary efficacy parameter) based on a matched pairs approach. RESULTS: Superiority of gadobutrol over gadoterate meglumine was demonstrated for the qualitative assessment of overall preference across all readers by a statistically significant difference between both contrast agents for this primary endpoint. Preferences in lesion enhancement (secondary endpoint) were also found significantly in favor of gadobutrol. For preference in lesion delineation from surrounding tissue/edema and for internal structure only a trend towards a higher proportion for gadobutrol was found (except for internal structure reported by one reader, which showed a result of statistical significance). Lesion contrast and relative lesion enhancement (quantitative parameters) were statistically significantly higher for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI of neoplastic brain lesions at a dose of 0.1mmolGd/kg body weight, assessed in a standardized off-site blinded reading, results in a significantly higher qualitative and quantitative preference for gadobutrol compared to gadoterate meglumine.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/215574
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 18
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 33
social impact