Is systematic Gadolinium injection relevant during MRI follow-up for non-functioning pituitary macroadenomas?

How often should we perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the follow-up of pituitary adenoma?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the examination of choice for diagnosing and monitoring pituitary adenoma (also known as pituitary neuroendocrine tumor or PitNET), whether treated or not. However, repeating the examination too often (and sometimes unnecessarily) is costly, and worrying data on tissue accumulation (brain, bone, etc.) of gadolinium atoms dissociated from their carrier molecule (chelator) have led European authorities to ban contrast agents based on linear chelators of gadolinium, which are particularly susceptible to rapid dissociation, in favor of chemically more stable macrocyclic chelators. It is therefore important to determine the optimal frequency for pituitary MRI monitoring in order to safely assess the natural history or therapeutic response of pituitary adenomas. The aim of this article is to summarize the most recent data on optimal follow-up intervals depending on the type, size and location of the pituitary tumor and the clinical situation in general, in order to generate monitoring algorithms to guide clinicians.

Is non-contrast MRI sufficient to detect meningioma residue after surgery?

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the imaging modality routinely used to follow up patients who have undergone surgical resection of brain meningiomas. There are growing concerns about the massive use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA). Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a new imaging protocol, performed without GBCA injection, in the detection of tumoral residue or local recurrence after surgery of parafalcine and convexity meningiomas.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Only adult patients with a documented resected parafalcine or convexity meningioma were included. We performed a dedicated MRI protocol that included non-contrast and post-contrast sequences. The presence or absence of residue on the unenhanced sequences was independently recorded by three observers: first blindly, then in comparison with a baseline enhanced MRI examination.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were included. 37 of them featured a tumor residue on the reference enhanced sequence. Overall, an average of 32 of 37 (87%) residues were identified on the unenhanced sequences that were blindly reviewed; and more than 34 of 37 (93%) were identified with the help of the comparative baseline enhanced examination, with a high sensitivity. The missed cases were related to small residues.

CONCLUSION

Unenhanced MRI sequences are highly sensitive and specific in identifying a tumor residue or a local recurrence in the post operative follow up of brain meningiomas. Sensitivity is even higher with the help of a comparative baseline enhanced MRI examination, whatever the strength of magnetic field.