Diffusion-weighted imaging of focal renal lesions: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced MRI can only distinguish to a limited extent between malignant and benign focal renal lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to review renal diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to compare apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for different renal lesions that can be applied in clinical practice. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify relevant articles published 2004-2011 on renal DWI of focal renal lesions. ADC values were extracted by lesion type to determine whether benign or malignant. The data table was finalised in a consensus read. ADC values were evaluated statistically using meta-regression based on a linear mixed model. Two-sided P value <5 % indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: The meta-analysis is based on 17 studies with 764 patients. Renal cell carcinomas have significant lower ADC values than benign tissue (1.61 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s vs 2.10 ± 0.09 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.0001). Uroepithelial malignancies can be differentiated by lowest ADC values (1.30 ± 0.11 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s). There is a significant difference between ADC values of renal cell carcinomas and oncocytomas (1.61 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s vs 2.00 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of ADC values can help to determine between benign and malignant lesions in general but also seems able to differentiate oncocytomas from malignant tumours, hence potentially reducing the number of unnecessarily performed nephrectomies. KEY POINTS: • This meta-analysis assesses the role of diffusion-weighted MRI in renal lesions. • ADC values obtained by DW MRI have been compared for different renal lesions. • ADC values can help distinguish between benign and malignant tumours. • Differentiating oncocytomas from malignant tumours can potentially reduce inappropriate nephrectomies.

Intra-individual, randomised comparison of the MRI contrast agents gadobutrol versus gadoteridol in patients with primary and secondary brain tumours, evaluated in a blinded read.

OBJECTIVE: To prove that 1.0 M gadobutrol provides superior contrast enhancement and MRI image characteristics of primary and secondary brain tumours compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, thereby providing superior diagnostic information. METHODS: Brain MRI was performed in two separate examinations in patients scheduled for neurosurgery. Independent injections of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadoteridol at doses of 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight were administered per patient in randomised order. Evaluation was performed in an off-site blinded read. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients in the full analysis set (FAS) were eligible for efficacy analysis and 44 for the per-protocol analysis. For the primary efficacy variable "preference in contrast enhancement for one contrast agent or the other", the rate of "gadobutrol preferred" was estimated at 0.73 (95 % confidence interval 0.61; 0.83), showing significant superiority of gadobutrol over gadoteridol. Calculated lesion-to-brain contrast and the results of all qualitative secondary efficacy variables were also in favour of gadobutrol. Keeping a sufficient time delay after contrast application proved to be essential to get optimal image quality. CONCLUSION: Compared with 0.5 M gadoteridol, 1.0 M gadobutrol was proven to have significantly superior contrast enhancement characteristics in a routine MRI protocol of primary and secondary brain tumours.

Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the prostate: comparison of gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the enhancement profile of the macrocyclic contrast medium (CM) gadobutrol in comparison to linear CM Gd-DTPA in DCE-MRI of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total 53 patients with prostata cancer (PCa) were included, who received a radical prostatectomy after multiparametric MRI of the prostate including DCE-MRI. Using circular regions of interests normal peripheral zone (PZ) and PCa foci > 5 mm in diameter (42 and 34 foci in Gd-DTPA and gadobutrol group, respectively) were analysed in DCE-MRI. Enhancement curves (Type I, II and III) and pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively and compared using mixed linear models (two sided p-values < 0.05 were regarded significant). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in frequencies of curve types I, II or III in the normal PZ (p = 0.63) or in PCa foci (p = 0.75). PCa with a Gleason score ≥ 7 had in comparison to Gleason ≤ 6 significantly more often a Wash-Out-curve (Type III) with both CM (p = 0.02). The relative peak enhancement was in the PZ (Gd-DTPA 1.4 a. u. [1.20; 1.59], gadobutrol 1.58 a. u. [1.37; 1.78]) and in PCa foci (Gd-DTPA 1.56 a. u. [1.41; 1.71], gadobutrol 1.76 a. u. [1.59; 1.94]) significantly higher with gadobutrol (p = 0.04). The pharmacokinetic parameters Ktrans und kep were higher in PCa foci than in PZ (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.002, respectively) without significant difference of the parameter values between both CM (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: [corrected] This study is the first systematic comparison of gadobutrol and Gd-DTPA in DCE-MRI of the prostate. The relative peak enhancement is higher using gadobutrol compared to Gd-DTPA in DCE-MRI. There was no statistically significant difference in curve types or the pharmacokinetic parameters in PCa or normal PZ between both CM.

Intra-individual randomised comparison of gadobutrol 1.0 M versus gadobenate dimeglumine 0.5 M in patients scheduled for preoperative breast MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate non-inferiority of gadobutrol versus gadobenate dimeglumine by intra-individually comparing 0.1 mmol/kg body weight doses for contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prospectively evaluating lesion detection and characterisation in a multicentre trial. METHODS: Two identical breast MRI examinations were performed in 72 patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer, separated by 1-7 days. Gadobutrol 1.0 M or gadobenate 0.5 M were administered in a randomised order. Lesion detection and characterisation were performed by two independent blinded readers. Lesion tracking, which compared on-site readings and histology from surgery or biopsy, was performed by a third reader. Differences in lesion detection and characterisation were compared between the two contrast agents. RESULTS: Among 103 lesions, 96 were malignant and 7 were benign. No difference in lesion detection was identified between the contrast agents (82.33 % for gadobutrol, 81.60 % for gadobenate). Assessment of sensitivity in lesion characterisation and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems showed no difference between gadobutrol (92.63 %) and gadobenate (90.53 %). Regarding morphology, there was more non-focal enhancement for gadobutrol than for gadobenate (P = 0.0057). CONCLUSION: Non-inferiority of gadobutrol compared with gadobenate was demonstrated for breast lesion detection and sensitivity in lesion characterisation in breast MRI.