Comparison of a 1.0 molar and a 0.5 molar formulation of gadobutrol in dynamic MR imaging of the liver in rats with hepatocellular carcinoma

Assessment of the hepatic tumor extracellular matrix using elastin-specific molecular magnetic resonance imaging in an experimental rabbit cancer model

To investigate the imaging performance of an elastin-specific molecular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) probe with respect to the extracellular matrix (ECM) in an experimental hepatic cancer model. Twelve rabbits with hepatic VX2 tumors were examined using 3 T MRI 14, 21, and 28 days after tumor implantation for two subsequent days (gadobutrol, day 1; elastin-specific probe, day 2). The relative enhancement (RE) of segmented tumor regions (central and margin) and the peritumoral matrix was calculated using pre-contrast and delayed-phase T1w sequences. MRI measurements were correlated to histopathology and element-specific and spatially resolved mass spectrometry (MS). Mixed-model analysis was performed to assess the performance of the elastin-specific probe. In comparison to gadobutrol, the elastin probe showed significantly stronger RE, which was pronounced in the tumor margin (day 14–28: P ≤ 0.007). In addition, the elastin probe was superior in discriminating between tumor regions (χ²(4) = 65.87; P < 0.001). MRI-based measurements of the elastin probe significantly correlated with the ex vivo elastinstain (R = .84; P <0 .001) and absolute gadolinium concentrations (ICP-MS: R = .73, P <0 .01). LA-ICP-MS imaging confirmed the colocalization of the elastin-specific probe with elastic fibers. Elastin-specific molecular MRI is superior to non-specific gadolinium-based contrast agents in imaging the ECM of hepatic tumors and the peritumoral tissue.

Double-dose 1.0-M gadobutrol versus standard-dose 0.5-M gadopentetate dimeglumine in revealing small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas

The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of double-dose 1.0-M gadobutrol with that of standard-dose 0.5-M gadopentetate dimeglumine for revealing small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). Twenty-three patients with 37 HCCs (mean size: 1.2 cm) that were diagnosed by histology (n = 13) or imaging findings (n = 10) underwent two separate 3D dynamic MRIs with 0.2 mmol/kg of gadobutrol and 0.1 mmol/kg of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three observers interpreted both MRIs in terms of lesion detection using the alternative-free response receiver operating characteristic method and lesion-to-liver contrast using matched pairs analysis. The two MRIs were also compared quantitatively by measuring the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver and lesion as well as the lesion-liver contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). The SNR of the liver and lesion and lesion-liver CNR with gadobutrol were better than those with gadopentetate dimeglumine (p < 0.01). However, in terms of the diagnostic accuracy (mean Az for gadobutrol: 0.878, and mean Az for gadopentate dimeglumine: 0.873), the sensitivity (92.8%), positive predictive value (92.8% vs. 93.7%) and lesion-liver contrast, the two dynamic MRIs were equivalent. Gadobutrol showed a superior degree of enhancement for hypervascular HCC than did gadopentetate dimeglumine, but the diagnostic capabilities of the two agents for revealing HCCs were equivalent.

Using highly concentrated gadobutrol as an MR contrast agent in patients also requiring hemodialysis: safety and dialysability

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and dialysability of gadobutrol, a new, electrically neutral, and highly concentrated MR contrast agent, in patients who require hemodialysis.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Eleven patients with end-stage renal failure who required ongoing hemodialysis were enrolled in our prospective study. Gadobutrol (1 mol/L) was injected IV at randomly assigned doses of either 0.1 or 0.3 mmol of gadolinium per kilogram of body weight for contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Hematology, clinical chemistry, and vital signs were closely monitored at baseline and during an observation period of 120 hr after the IV injection of gadobutrol. To calculate the dialysability, blood samples were drawn before and after each of three hemodialysis sessions. Additional arterial and venous blood sampling was performed during the first hemodialysis session after 30 and 90 min.

RESULTS

No gadobutrol-related changes in hematology, clinical chemistry, or vital signs were detected at either dose level during the observation period. The mean and the standard deviation for the eliminated fraction of gadobutrol was 68.2% +/- 12.7% after a 3-hr hemodialysis session using a 1.2 m(2) low-flux polysulfone membrane. After three consecutive hemodialysis sessions, the total amount of gadobutrol eliminated increased to 98.0% +/- 1.8%. The mean clearance rates of gadobutrol were 126.1 +/- 17.8 mL/min and 126.6 +/- 24.5 mL/min at 30 and 90 min, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Gadobutrol is effectively removed by three hemodialysis sessions using a low-flux polysulfone membrane. Our study documents initial evidence that gadobutrol can be used safely in hemodialysis patients.

Renal tolerance of a neutral gadolinium chelate (gadobutrol) in patients with chronic renal failure: results of a randomized study

PURPOSE

To assess the renal tolerance of 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol as an electrically neutral contrast agent at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in patients with impaired renal function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-one patients with impaired renal function were enrolled in this prospective randomized study and classified into two subgroups according to their creatinine clearance: group 1 (n = 12), less than 80 mL/min (<1.33 mL/sec) and greater than 30 mL/min (>0.50 mL/sec); group 2 (n = 9), less than 30 mL/min (<0.50 mL/sec) and not requiring dialysis. Gadobutrol (1.0 mol/L) was injected intravenously at randomly assigned doses of either 0.1 or 0.3 mmol per kilogram of body weight. Changes in vital signs, clinical chemistry, and urinalysis results, including creatinine clearance, were monitored before, at 6 hours, and then every 24 hours until 72 hours (group 1) or 120 hours (group 2) after intravenous injection of gadobutrol. Hematologic results were checked every other day.

RESULTS

No serious adverse event occurred, and no clinically relevant changes in vital signs, hematologic results, clinical chemistry, or urinalysis results were detected in the observation period. Markers for glomerular filtration (creatinine, cystatin C, beta2-microglobulin, creatinine clearance) and tubular function (N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase, alpha1-microglobulin) were unaffected by gadobutrol in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Gadobutrol did not affect renal function and, therefore, proved to be a safe MR contrast agent in patients with impaired renal function. Even in patients with marginal excretory function (creatinine clearance, <30 mL/min [<0.50 mL/sec]), prehydration or treatment with diuretics or hemodialysis are not required after the administration of gadobutrol.