MR Imaging of Neoplastic Central Nervous System Lesions: Review and Recommendations for Current Practice

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Essig M,
   2. Weber MA,
   3. Tengg-Kobligk H,
   4. et al

   . Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of central nervous system tumors: agents, mechanisms, and applications. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2006;17:89–106

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Runge VM,
   2. Muroff LR,
   3. Wells JW

   . Principles of contrast enhancement in the evaluation of brain diseases: an overview. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:5–13

   PubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Schellinger PD,
   2. Meinck HM,
   3. Thron A

   . Diagnostic accuracy of MRI compared to CCT in patients with brain metastases. J Neurooncol 1999;44:275–81

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Yuh WT,
   2. Tali ET,
   3. Nguyen HD,
   4. et al

   . The effect of contrast dose, imaging time, and lesion size in the MR detection of intracerebral metastasis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:373–80

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
5. 5.↵
   1. Runge VM,
   2. Muroff LR,
   3. Jinkins JR

   . Central nervous system: review of clinical use of contrast media. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:231–63

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Forsting M,
   2. Palkowitsch P

   . Prevalence of acute adverse reactions to gadobutrol: a highly concentrated macrocyclic gadolinium chelate—review of 14,299 patients from observational trials. Eur J Radiol 2010;74:e186–e192. Epub 2009 Jul 2

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Bleicher AG,
   2. Kanal E

   . Assessment of adverse reaction rates to a newly approved MRI contrast agent: review of 23,553 administrations of gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:W307–11

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Herborn CU,
   2. Honold E,
   3. Wolf M,
   4. et al

   . Clinical safety and diagnostic value of the gadolinium chelate gadoterate meglumine (Gd-DOTA). Invest Radiol 2007;42:58–62

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Nelson KL,
   2. Gifford LM,
   3. Lauber-Huber C,
   4. et al

   . Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 1995;196:439–43

   PubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Engelhorn T,
    2. Doerfler A

    . High-molar contrast agents for CNS application. Imaging Decisions MRI 2008;11:26–32

    CrossRef
11. 11.↵
    1. Cha S

    . Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:475–87

    FREE Full Text
12. 12.
    1. Field AS,
    2. Alexander AL,
    3. Wu YC,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion tensor eigenvector directional color imaging patterns in the evaluation of cerebral white matter tracts altered by tumor. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:555–62

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.
    1. Field AS,
    2. Alexander AL

    . Diffusion tensor imaging in cerebral tumor diagnosis and therapy. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:315–24

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Yang L,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of microvascular permeability measurements, K(trans), determined with conventional steady-state T1-weighted and first-pass T2*-weighted MR imaging methods in gliomas and meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:409–17

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.
    1. Cha S

    . Neuroimaging in neuro-oncology. Neurotherapeutics 2009;6:465–77

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. 16.
    1. Roberts HC,
    2. Pickering RM,
    3. Onslow E,
    4. et al

    . The effectiveness of implementing a care pathway for femoral neck fracture in older people: a prospective controlled before and after study. Age Ageing 2004;33:178–84

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Cha S

    . Perfusion MR imaging: basic principles and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2003;11:403–13

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.
    1. Jackson A,
    2. Jayson GC,
    3. Li KL,
    4. et al

    . Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br J Radiol 2003;76:153–62

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Lacerda S,
    2. Law M

    . Magnetic resonance perfusion and permeability imaging in brain tumors. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009;19:527–57

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Young RJ,
    3. Babb JS,
    4. et al

    . Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2008;247:490–98

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.
    1. Li KL,
    2. Zhu XP,
    3. Checkley DR,
    4. et al

    . Simultaneous mapping of blood volume and endothelial permeability surface area product in gliomas using iterative analysis of first-pass dynamic contrast enhanced MRI data. Br J Radiol 2003;76:39–50

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.
    1. Li KL,
    2. Zhu XP,
    3. Waterton J,
    4. et al

    . Improved 3D quantitative mapping of blood volume and endothelial permeability in brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:347–57

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.
    1. Roberts HC,
    2. Roberts TP,
    3. Ley S,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative estimation of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors: correlation of dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging with histopathologic grading. Acad Radiol 2002;9(suppl 1):S151–55

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Roberts HC,
    2. Roberts TP,
    3. Brasch RC,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:891–99

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.
    1. Desprechins B,
    2. Stadnik T,
    3. Koerts G,
    4. et al

    . Use of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differential diagnosis between intracerebral necrotic tumors and cerebral abscesses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1999;20:1252–57

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
26. 26.
    1. Schaefer PW,
    2. Grant PE,
    3. Gonzalez RG

    . Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 2000;217:331–45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.
    1. Barajas RF Jr.,
    2. Rubenstein JL,
    3. Chang JS,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion-weighted MR imaging derived apparent diffusion coefficient is predictive of clinical outcome in primary central nervous system lymphoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:60–66

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.
    1. Murakami R,
    2. Hirai T,
    3. Sugahara T,
    4. et al

    . Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 2009;251:838–45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Law M

    . MR spectroscopy of brain tumors. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:291–313

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.
    1. Nelson SJ,
    2. Cha S

    . Imaging glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer J 2003;9:134–45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.
    1. Nelson SJ

    . Analysis of volume MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging data for the evaluation of patients with brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:228–39

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.
    1. Nelson SJ

    . Multivoxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy of brain tumors. Mol Cancer Ther 2003;2:497–507

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.
    1. Tedeschi G,
    2. Lundbom N,
    3. Raman R,
    4. et al

    . Increased choline signal coinciding with malignant degeneration of cerebral gliomas: a serial proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging study. J Neurosurg 1997;87:516–24

    PubMedWeb of Science
34. 34.
    1. Petrella JR,
    2. Provenzale JM

    . MR perfusion imaging of the brain: techniques and applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:207–19

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    1. Chen W

    . Clinical applications of PET in brain tumors. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1468–81

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.
    1. Lin FH,
    2. Witzel T,
    3. Mandeville JB,
    4. et al

    . Event-related single-shot volumetric functional magnetic resonance inverse imaging of visual processing. Neuroimage 2008;42:230–47

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Iannucci G,
    2. Mascalchi M,
    3. Salvi F,
    4. et al

    . Vanishing Balò-like lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:399–400

    FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    1. Butteriss DJ,
    2. Ismail A,
    3. Ellison DW,
    4. et al

    . Use of serial proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy to differentiate low grade glioma from tumefactive plaque in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Br J Radiol 2003;76:662–65

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Meltzer DE,
    3. Cha S

    . Spectroscopic magnetic resonance imaging of a tumefactive demyelinating lesion. Neuroradiology 2002;44:986–89

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
40. 40.↵
    1. De Stefano N,
    2. Caramanos Z,
    3. Preul MC,
    4. et al

    . In vivo differentiation of astrocytic brain tumors and isolated demyelinating lesions of the type seen in multiple sclerosis using 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Ann Neurol 1998;44:273–78

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
41. 41.↵
    1. Saindane AM,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Law M,
    4. et al

    . Proton MR spectroscopy of tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2002;23:1378–86

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Cianfoni A,
    2. Niku S,
    3. Imbesi SG

    . Metabolite findings in tumefactive demyelinating lesions utilizing short echo time proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:272–77

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
43. 43.↵
    1. Majos C,
    2. Aguilera C,
    3. Alonso J,
    4. et al

    . Proton MR spectroscopy improves discrimination between tumor and pseudotumoral lesion in solid brain masses. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:544–51

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Pierce S,
    3. Knopp EA,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging of tumefactive demyelinating lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1109–16

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Cha S,
    3. Knopp EA,
    4. et al

    . High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 2002;222:715–21

    PubMedWeb of Science
46. 46.↵
    1. Louis DN,
    2. Ohgaki H,
    3. Wiestler OD,
    4. et al

    . The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114:97–109. Epub 2007 Jul 6

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
47. 47.↵
    1. Dean BL,
    2. Drayer BP,
    3. Bird CR,
    4. et al

    . Gliomas: classification with MR imaging. Radiology 1990;174:411–15

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
48. 48.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Yang S,
    3. Wang H,
    4. et al

    . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
49. 49.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Wang EY,
    3. Oh S,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging of low-grade gliomas: a follow-up study of lesions with low vs high relative cerebral blood volume. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology, Seattle; June 5–11, 2004
50. 50.↵
    1. Kelly PJ

    . Volumetric stereotactic surgical resection of intra-axial brain mass lesions. Mayo Clin Proc 1988;63:1186–98

    PubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Kelly PJ

    . Stereotactic imaging, surgical planning and computer-assisted resection of intracranial lesions: methods and results. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg 1990;17:77–118

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Kelly PJ

    . Computed tomography and histologic limits in glial neoplasms: tumor types and selection for volumetric resection. Surg Neurol 1993;39:458–65

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Weber MA,
    2. Henze M,
    3. Tüttenberg J,
    4. et al

    . Biopsy targeting gliomas: do functional imaging techniques identify similar target areas? Invest Radiol 2010;45:755–68

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Yu CS,
    2. Li KC,
    3. Xuan Y,
    4. et al

    . Diffusion tensor tractography in patients with cerebral tumors: a helpful technique for neurosurgical planning and postoperative assessment. Eur J Radiol 2005;56:197–204

    CrossRefPubMed
55. 55.↵
    1. Law M

    . Neurological complications. Cancer Imaging 2009;9(spec no A):S71–74

    CrossRefPubMed
56. 56.↵
    1. Stummer W,
    2. Pichlmeier U,
    3. Meinel T,
    4. et al

    . Fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid for resection of malignant glioma: a randomised controlled multicentre phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:392–401

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
57. 57.↵
    1. Wick W,
    2. Hartmann C,
    3. Engel C,
    4. et al

    . NOA-04 randomized phase III trial of sequential radiochemotherapy of anaplastic glioma with procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine or temozolomide. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5874–80. Epub 2009 Nov 9

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
58. 58.↵
    1. Shaw EG,
    2. Tatter SB,
    3. Lesser GJ,
    4. et al

    . Current controversies in the radiotherapeutic management of adult low-grade glioma. Semin Oncol 2004;31:653–58

    CrossRefPubMed
59. 59.↵
    1. Shaw EG,
    2. Wisoff JH

    . Prospective clinical trials of intracranial low-grade glioma in adults and children. Neuro Oncol 2003;5:153–60

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
60. 60.↵
    1. Chan MD,
    2. Tatter SB,
    3. Lesser G,
    4. et al

    . Radiation oncology in brain tumors: current approaches and clinical trials in progress. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2010;20:401–08

    CrossRefPubMed
61. 61.↵
    1. Combs SE

    . Radiation therapy. Recent Results Cancer Res 2009;171:125–40

    CrossRefPubMed
62. 62.↵
    1. Stupp R,
    2. Hegi ME,
    3. Mason WP,
    4. et al

    . Effects of radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide versus radiotherapy alone on survival in glioblastoma in a randomised phase III study: 5-year analysis of the EORTC-NCIC trial. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:459–66. Epub 2009 Mar 9

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
63. 63.↵
    1. Pirzkall A,
    2. McKnight TR,
    3. Graves EE,
    4. et al

    . MR-spectroscopy guided target delineation for high-grade gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:915–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
64. 64.↵
    1. Stall B,
    2. Zach L,
    3. Ning H,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of T2 and FLAIR imaging for target delineation in high grade gliomas. Radiat Oncol 2010;5:5
65. 65.↵
    1. Jain R,
    2. Gutierrez J,
    3. Narang J,
    4. et al

    . In vivo correlation of tumor blood volume and permeability with histologic and molecular angiogenic markers in gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;32:388–94. Epub 2010 Nov 11

    PubMed
66. 66.↵
    1. Macdonald DR,
    2. Cascino TL,
    3. Schold SC Jr.,
    4. et al

    . Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1277–80

    Abstract
67. 67.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. Macdonald DR,
    3. Reardon DA,
    4. et al

    . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
68. 68.↵
    1. van den Bent MJ,
    2. Vogelbaum MA,
    3. Wen PY,
    4. et al

    . End point assessment in gliomas: novel treatments limit usefulness of classical Macdonald's criteria. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2905–08

    FREE Full Text
69. 69.↵
    1. Clarke JL,
    2. Chang S

    . Pseudoprogression and pseudoresponse: challenges in brain tumor imaging. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2009;9:241–46

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
70. 70.↵
    1. Brandes AA,
    2. Tosoni A,
    3. Spagnolli F,
    4. et al

    . Disease progression or pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment: pitfalls in neurooncology. Neuro Oncol 2008;10:361–67. Epub 2008 Apr 9

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
71. 71.↵
    1. Brandsma D,
    2. Stalpers L,
    3. Taal W,
    4. et al

    . Clinical features, mechanisms, and management of pseudoprogression in malignant gliomas. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:453–61

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
72. 72.↵
    1. Law M,
    2. Lacerda S,
    3. Fatterpekar G,
    4. et al

    . Characterization of true disease progression versus pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy treatment using perfusion, permeability, and MR spectroscopy in high grade gliomas. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Illinois; November 29-December 4, 2009
73. 73.↵
    RTOG Study Chairs (Coordinating Group). Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial of conventional concurrent chemoradiation and adjuvant temozolomide plus bevacizumab versus conventional concurrent chemoradiation and adjuvant temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. ACRIN: American College of Radiology Imaging Network. 2009. http://www.acrin.org/PROTOCOLSUMMARYTABLE/PROTOCOL6686.aspx. Accessed January 14, 2011
74. 74.
    1. Stuckey SL,
    2. Goh TD,
    3. Heffernan T,
    4. et al

    . Hyperintensity in the subarachnoid space on FLAIR MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:913–21

    CrossRefPubMed
75. 75.↵
    1. Stankiewicz JM,
    2. Glanz BI,
    3. Healy BC,
    4. et al

    . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011;21:e50–56

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
76. 76.↵
    1. Wattjes MP,
    2. Lutterbey GG,
    3. Harzheim M,
    4. et al

    . Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2067–73

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
77. 77.↵
    1. Attenberger UI,
    2. Runge VM,
    3. Morelli JN,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of gadobutrol, a macrocyclic, nonionic gadolinium chelate in a brain glioma model: comparison with gadoterate meglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine at 1.5 T, combined with an assessment of field strength dependence, specifically 1.5 versus 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:549–55

    CrossRefPubMed
78. 78.↵
    1. Biswas J,
    2. Nelson CB,
    3. Runge VM,
    4. et al

    . Brain tumor enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at 1.5 versus 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2005;40:792–97

    CrossRefPubMed
79. 79.↵
    1. Wintersperger BJ,
    2. Runge VM,
    3. Biswas J,
    4. et al

    . Brain tumor enhancement in MR imaging at 3 Tesla: comparison of SNR and CNR gain using TSE and GRE techniques. Invest Radiol 2007;42:558–63

    CrossRefPubMed
80. 80.↵
    1. Wiggins GC,
    2. Triantafyllou C,
    3. Potthast A,
    4. et al

    . 32-channel 3 Tesla receive-only phased-array head coil with soccer-ball element geometry. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:216–23

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
81. 81.↵
    1. Wiggins GC,
    2. Polimeni JR,
    3. Potthast A,
    4. et al

    . 96-channel receive-only head coil for 3 Tesla: design optimization and evaluation. Magn Reson Med 2009;62:754–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
82. 82.↵
    1. Ba-Ssalamah A,
    2. Nobauer-Huhmann IM,
    3. Pinker K,
    4. et al

    . Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2003;38:415–22

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
83. 83.↵
    1. Schneider G,
    2. Kirchin MA,
    3. Pirovano G,
    4. et al

    . Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial metastases: effect of dose on lesion detection and delineation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14:525–39

    CrossRefPubMed
84. 84.↵
    1. Engelhorn T,
    2. Schwarz MA,
    3. Eyupoglu IY,
    4. et al

    . Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma an intra-individual comparative study to assess the optimal time delay. Acad Radiol 2010;17:188–93

    CrossRefPubMed
85. 85.↵
    1. Frenzel T,
    2. Lengsfeld P,
    3. Schirmer H,
    4. et al

    . Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 2008;43:817–28

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
86. 86.↵
    1. Sieber MA,
    2. Lengsfeld P,
    3. Frenzel T,
    4. et al

    . Preclinical investigation to compare different gadolinium-based contrast agents regarding their propensity to release gadolinium in vivo and to trigger nephrogenic systemic fibrosis-like lesions. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2164–73

    CrossRefPubMed
87. 87.↵
    1. Grobner T

    . Gadolinium: a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1104–08

    FREE Full Text
88. 88.↵
    European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency makes recommendations to minimise risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis with gadolinium-containing contrast agents. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/public_health_alerts/2010/09/human_pha_detail_000013.jsp&murl=menus/medicines/medicines.jsp&mid=&jsenabled=true. Accessed January 14, 2011
89. 89.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA News Release. New warnings required on use of gadolinium-based contrast agents: enhanced screening recommended to detect kidney dysfunction. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm225286.htm. Accessed January 14, 2011
90. 90.↵
    1. Port M,
    2. Corot C,
    3. Violas X,
    4. et al

    . How to compare the efficiency of albumin-bound and nonalbumin-bound contrast agents in vivo: the concept of dynamic relaxivity. Invest Radiol 2005;40:565–73

    CrossRefPubMed
91. 91.↵
    1. Giesel FL,
    2. Mehndiratta A,
    3. Risse F,
    4. et al

    . Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for magnetic resonance perfusion in normal brain and intracranial tumors at 3 Tesla. Acta Radiol 2009;50:521–30

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
92. 92.↵
    1. Rohrer M,
    2. Bauer H,
    3. Mintorovitch J,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–24

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
93. 93.↵
    1. Akeson P,
    2. Jonsson E,
    3. Haugen I,
    4. et al

    . Contrast-enhanced MRI of the central nervous system: comparison between gadodiamide injection and gadolinium-DTPA. Neuroradiology 1995;37:229–33

    PubMed
94. 94.↵
    1. Anzalone N,
    2. Gerevini S,
    3. Scotti R,
    4. et al

    . Detection of cerebral metastases on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual comparison of gadobutrol with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Acta Radiol 2009;50:933–40

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
95. 95.↵
    1. Essig M,
    2. Lodemann KP,
    3. Le Huu M,
    4. et al

    . Intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for cerebral magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 1.5 T. Invest Radiol 2006;41:256–63

    CrossRefPubMed
96. 96.↵
    1. Greco A,
    2. Parker JR,
    3. Ratcliffe CG,
    4. et al

    . Phase III, randomized, double-blind, cross-over comparison of gadoteridol and gadopentetate dimeglumine in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with intracranial lesions. Australas Radiol 2001;45:457–63

    CrossRefPubMed
97. 97.↵
    1. Grossman RI,
    2. Rubin DL,
    3. Hunter G,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with central nervous system pathology: a comparison of OptiMARK (Gd-DTPA-BMEA) and Magnevist (Gd-DTPA). Invest Radiol 2000;35:412–19

    CrossRefPubMed
98. 98.↵
    1. Kim ES,
    2. Chang JH,
    3. Choi HS,
    4. et al

    . Diagnostic yield of double-dose gadobutrol in the detection of brain metastasis: intraindividual comparison with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1055–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
99. 99.↵
    1. Kuhn MJ,
    2. Picozzi P,
    3. Maldjian JA,
    4. et al

    . 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. J Neurosurg 2007;106:557–66

    CrossRefPubMed
100. 100.↵
     1. Maravilla KR,
     2. Maldjian JA,
     3. Schmalfuss IM,
     4. et al

     . Contrast enhancement of central nervous system lesions: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparative study of two MR contrast agents. Radiology 2006;240:389–400

     CrossRefPubMed
101. 101.↵
     1. Oudkerk M,
     2. Sijens PE,
     3. Van Beek EJ,
     4. et al

     . Safety and efficacy of Dotarem (Gd-DOTA) versus Magnevist (Gd-DTPA) in magnetic resonance imaging of the central nervous system. Invest Radiol 1995;30:75–78

     CrossRefPubMed
102. 102.↵
     1. Rowley HA,
     2. Scialfa G,
     3. Gao PY,
     4. et al

     . Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1684–91

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
103. 103.↵
     1. Rumboldt Z,
     2. Rowley HA,
     3. Steinberg F,
     4. et al

     . Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of brain tumors at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:760–67

     CrossRefPubMed
104. 104.↵
     1. Valk J,
     2. Algra PR,
     3. Hazenberg CJ,
     4. et al

     . A double-blind, comparative study of gadodiamide injection and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of the central nervous system. Neuroradiology 1993;35:173–77

     CrossRefPubMed
105. 105.↵
     1. Anzalone N,
     2. Colosimo C,
     3. Scarabino T,
     4. et al

     . Cerebral neoplastic enhancing lesions: multicenter, randomized, crossover intraindividual comparison between gadobutrol (1.0M) and gadoterate meglumine (0.5M) at 0.1 mmol Gd/kg body weight in a clinical setting. Eur J Radiol In press.
106. 106.↵
     1. Attenberger UI,
     2. Runge VM,
     3. Jackson CB,
     4. et al

     . Comparative evaluation of lesion enhancement using 1 M gadobutrol vs. 2 conventional gadolinium chelates, all at a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg, in a rat brain tumor model at 3 T. Invest Radiol 2009;44:251–56

     CrossRefPubMed
107. 107.↵
     1. Le Duc G,
     2. Corde S,
     3. Charvet AM,
     4. et al

     . In vivo measurement of gadolinium concentration in a rat glioma model by monochromatic quantitative computed tomography: comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadobutrol. Invest Radiol 2004;39:385–93

     CrossRefPubMed
108. 108.↵
     1. Tombach B,
     2. Benner T,
     3. Reimer P,
     4. et al

     . Do highly concentrated gadolinium chelates improve MR brain perfusion imaging? Intraindividually controlled randomized crossover concentration comparison study of 0.5 versus 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol. Radiology 2003;226:880–88

     PubMed
109. 109.↵
     1. Akeson P,
     2. Larsson EM,
     3. Kristoffersen DT,
     4. et al

     . Brain metastases: comparison of gadodiamide injection-enhanced MR imaging at standard and high dose, contrast-enhanced CT and non-contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acta Radiol 1995;36:300–06

     PubMedWeb of Science
110. 110.↵
     1. Benner T,
     2. Reimer P,
     3. Erb G,
     4. et al

     . Cerebral MR perfusion imaging: first clinical application of a 1 M gadolinium chelate (Gadovist 1.0) in a double-blinded randomized dose-finding study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:371–80

     CrossRefPubMed
111. 111.↵
     1. Filippi M,
     2. Rovaris M,
     3. Capra R,
     4. et al

     . A multi-centre longitudinal study comparing the sensitivity of monthly MRI after standard and triple dose gadolinium-DTPA for monitoring disease activity in multiple sclerosis: implications for phase II clinical trials. Brain 1998;121(pt 10):2011–20

     Abstract/FREE Full Text
112. 112.↵
     1. Runge VM,
     2. Kirsch JE,
     3. Burke VJ,
     4. et al

     . High-dose gadoteridol in MR imaging of intracranial neoplasms. J Magn Reson Imaging 1992;2:9–18

     PubMedWeb of Science
113. 113.↵
     1. Sze G,
     2. Johnson C,
     3. Kawamura Y,
     4. et al

     . Comparison of single- and triple-dose contrast material in the MR screening of brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:821–28

     Abstract
114. 114.↵
     1. Uysal E,
     2. Erturk SM,
     3. Yildirim H,
     4. et al

     . Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:697–702

     CrossRefPubMed
115. 115.↵
     1. van der Molen AJ,
     2. Bellin MF

     . Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: differences in diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:168–74

     CrossRefPubMed
116. 116.↵
     1. van Dijk P,
     2. Sijens PE,
     3. Schmitz PI,
     4. et al

     . Gd-enhanced MR imaging of brain metastases: contrast as a function of dose and lesion size. Magn Reson Imaging 1997;15:535–41

     CrossRefPubMed
117. 117.↵
     1. Vogl TJ,
     2. Friebe CE,
     3. Balzer T,
     4. et al

     . Diagnosis of cerebral metastasis with standard dose gadobutrol vs. a high dose protocol: intraindividual evaluation of a phase II high dose study[in German]. Radiologe 1995;35:508–16

     PubMed
118. 118.↵
     1. Wolansky LJ,
     2. Bardini JA,
     3. Cook SD,
     4. Z,
     5. et al

     . Triple-dose versus single-dose gadoteridol in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neuroimaging 1994;4:141–45

     PubMed
119. 119.↵
     1. Yuh WT,
     2. Halloran JI,
     3. Mayr NA,
     4. et al

     . Dose of contrast material in the MR imaging evaluation of central nervous system tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4:243–49

     PubMed
120. 120.↵
     1. Anzalone N

     . Comparative studies of different gadolinium agents in brain tumors: differences between gadolinium chelates and their possible influence on imaging features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:981–82

     FREE Full Text