Journal of neurosurgery · 2007
Evaluation of intraaxial enhancing brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for visualization and assessment, and implications for surgical intervention.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kuhn Matthew J, Picozzi Piero, Maldjian Joseph A, Schmalfuss Ilona M, Maravilla Kenneth R, Bowen Brian C, Wippold Franz J, Runge Val M, Knopp Michael V, Wolansky Leo J, Gustafsson Lars, Essig Marco, Anzalone Nicoletta
Аннотация
OBJECT: The goal in this article was to compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) and gadopentetate dimeglumine, also known as gadolinium diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA), for enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of intraaxial brain tumors.
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with either intraaxial glioma (47 patients) or metastasis (37 patients) underwent two MR imaging examinations at 1.5 tesla, one with Gd-BOPTA as the contrast agent and the other with Gd-DTPA. The interval between fully randomized contrast medium administrations was 2 to 7 days. The T1-weighted spin echo and T2-weighted fast spin echo images were acquired before administration of contrast agents and T1-weighted spin echo images were obtained after the agents were administered. Acquisition parameters and postinjection acquisition times were identical for the two examinations in each patient. Three experienced readers working in a fully blinded fashion independently evaluated all images for degree and quality of available information (lesion contrast enhancement, lesion border delineation, definition of disease extent, visualization of the lesion's internal structures, global diagnostic preference) and quantitative enhancement (that is, the extent of lesion enhancement after contrast agent administration compared with that seen before its administration [hereafter referred to as percent enhancement], lesion/brain ratio, and contrast/noise ratio). Differences were tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reader agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Significantly better diagnostic information/imaging performance (p < 0.0001, all readers) was obtained with Gd-BOPTA for all visualization end points. Global preference for images obtained with Gd-BOPTA was expressed for 42 (50%), 52 (61.9%), and 56 (66.7%) of 84 patients (readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively) compared with images obtained with Gd-DTPA contrast in four (4.8%), six (7.1%), and three (3.6%) of 84 patients. Similar differences were noted for all other visualization end points. Significantly greater quantitative contrast enhancement (p < 0.04) was noted after administration of Gd-BOPTA. Reader agreement was good (kappa > 0.4).
CONCLUSIONS: Lesion visualization, delineation, definition, and contrast enhancement are significantly better after administration of 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA, potentially allowing better surgical planning and follow up and improved disease management.
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with either intraaxial glioma (47 patients) or metastasis (37 patients) underwent two MR imaging examinations at 1.5 tesla, one with Gd-BOPTA as the contrast agent and the other with Gd-DTPA. The interval between fully randomized contrast medium administrations was 2 to 7 days. The T1-weighted spin echo and T2-weighted fast spin echo images were acquired before administration of contrast agents and T1-weighted spin echo images were obtained after the agents were administered. Acquisition parameters and postinjection acquisition times were identical for the two examinations in each patient. Three experienced readers working in a fully blinded fashion independently evaluated all images for degree and quality of available information (lesion contrast enhancement, lesion border delineation, definition of disease extent, visualization of the lesion's internal structures, global diagnostic preference) and quantitative enhancement (that is, the extent of lesion enhancement after contrast agent administration compared with that seen before its administration [hereafter referred to as percent enhancement], lesion/brain ratio, and contrast/noise ratio). Differences were tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Reader agreement was assessed using kappa statistics. Significantly better diagnostic information/imaging performance (p < 0.0001, all readers) was obtained with Gd-BOPTA for all visualization end points. Global preference for images obtained with Gd-BOPTA was expressed for 42 (50%), 52 (61.9%), and 56 (66.7%) of 84 patients (readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively) compared with images obtained with Gd-DTPA contrast in four (4.8%), six (7.1%), and three (3.6%) of 84 patients. Similar differences were noted for all other visualization end points. Significantly greater quantitative contrast enhancement (p < 0.04) was noted after administration of Gd-BOPTA. Reader agreement was good (kappa > 0.4).
CONCLUSIONS: Lesion visualization, delineation, definition, and contrast enhancement are significantly better after administration of 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-BOPTA, potentially allowing better surgical planning and follow up and improved disease management.