Cumulative Dose of Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent Improves Detection of Enhancing Lesions in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Filippi M,
   3. Rocca MA

   . MR imaging of multiple sclerosis. Radiology 2011;259:659–81 doi:10.1148/radiol.11101362 pmid:21602503

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Zivadinov R,
   3. Stosic M,
   4. Cox JL, et al

   . The place of conventional MRI and newly emerging MRI techniques in monitoring different aspects of treatment outcome. J Neurol 2008;255(suppl 1):61–74 doi:10.1007/s00415-008-1009-1 pmid:18317678

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Wolansky LJ,
   3. Finden SG,
   4. Chang R, et al

   . Gadoteridol in multiple sclerosis patients: a comparison of single and triple dose with immediate vs. delayed imaging. Clin Imaging 1998;22:385–92 doi:10.1016/S0899-7071(98)00072-2 pmid:9876905

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Filippi M,
   3. Rovaris M,
   4. Capra R, 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;121:2011–20 doi:10.1093/brain/121.10.2011 pmid:9798753

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Rovaris M,
   3. Codella M,
   4. Moiola L, et al

   . Effect of glatiramer acetate on MS lesions enhancing at different gadolinium doses. Neurology 2002;59:1429–32 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000033800.93899.E1 pmid:12427898

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   2. Sardanelli F,
   3. Iozzelli A,
   4. Losacco C, et al

   . Three subsequent single doses of gadolinium chelate for brain MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:658–62 pmid:12695199

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   2. Stecco A,
   3. Migazzo E,
   4. Saponaro A, et al

   . Gadolinium dose optimisation in patients with multiple sclerosis: intra- and inter-individual comparisons. Eur J Radiol 2006;57:37–42 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.06.004 pmid:16040220

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   2. Uysal E,
   3. Erturk SM,
   4. Yildirim H, 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 doi:10.2214/AJR.05.2212 pmid:17312056

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Sicotte NL,
   3. Voskuhl RR,
   4. Bouvier S, et al

   . Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2003;38:423–27 pmid:12821856

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Hodel J,
    3. Outteryck O,
    4. Ryo E, et al

    . Accuracy of postcontrast 3D turbo spin-echo MR sequence for the detection of enhanced inflammatory lesions in patients with multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:519–23 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3795 pmid:24200899

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    2. Crombé A,
    3. Saranathan M,
    4. Ruet A, et al

    . MS lesions are better detected with 3D T1 gradient-echo than with 2D T1 spin-echo gadolinium-enhanced imaging at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:501–07 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4152 pmid:25376810

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Silver NC,
    3. Good CD,
    4. Barker GJ, et al

    . Sensitivity of contrast enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis: effects of gadolinium dose, magnetization transfer contrast and delayed imaging. Brain 1997;120:1149–61 doi:10.1093/brain/120.7.1149 pmid:9236628

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    2. Silver NC,
    3. Good CD,
    4. Sormani MP, et al

    . A modified protocol to improve the detection of enhancing brain and spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2001;248:215–24 doi:10.1007/s004150170229 pmid:11355156

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Capra R,
    4. Campi A, et al

    . Triple dose of gadolinium-DTPA and delayed MRI in patients with benign multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996;60:526–30 doi:10.1136/jnnp.60.5.526 pmid:8778257

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    2. van Waesberghe JH,
    3. Castelijns JA,
    4. Roser W, et al

    . Single-dose gadolinium with magnetization transfer versus triple-dose gadolinium in the MR detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1279–85 pmid:9282855

    Abstract
16. 16.↵
    2. Tourdias T,
    3. Dousset V

    . Neuroinflammatory imaging biomarkers: relevance to multiple sclerosis and its therapy. Neurotherapeutics 2013;10:111–23 doi:10.1007/s13311-012-0155-4 pmid:23132327

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Polman CH,
    3. Reingold SC,
    4. Banwell B, et al

    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302 doi:10.1002/ana.22366 pmid:21387374

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Comi G,
    3. Martinelli V,
    4. Rodegher M, et al

    ; PreCISe study group. Effect of glatiramer acetate on conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (PreCISe study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:1503–11 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61259-9 pmid:19815268

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Fox RJ,
    3. Miller DH,
    4. Phillips JT, et al

    ; CONFIRM Study Investigators. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1087–97 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206328 pmid:22992072

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
20. 20.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Yousry T,
    4. Rocca MA, et al

    . Sensitivity of delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1997;95:331–34 doi:10.1111/j.1600-0404.1997.tb00220.x pmid:9228265

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Rovira À,
    3. Wattjes MP,
    4. Tintoré M, et al

    ; MAGNIMS study group. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis-clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:471–82 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106 pmid:26149978

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Rovira À,
    4. Miller D, et al

    ; MAGNIMS study group. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis–establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:597–606 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157 pmid:26369511

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Drangova M,
    3. Pelc NJ

    . Artifacts and signal loss due to flow in the presence of B(o) inhomogeneity. Magn Reson Med 1996;35:126–30 doi:10.1002/mrm.1910350116 pmid:8771030

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Bermel RA,
    3. You X,
    4. Foulds P, et al

    . Predictors of long-term outcome in multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon β. Ann Neurol 2013;73:95–103 doi:10.1002/ana.23758 pmid:23378325

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Kappos L,
    3. Moeri D,
    4. Radue EW, et al

    ; Gadolinium MRI Meta-Analysis Group. Predictive value of gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for relapse rate and changes in disability or impairment in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;353:964–69 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03053-0 pmid:10459905

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    2. Polman C,
    3. Kappos L,
    4. Freedman MS, et al

    ; BENEFIT investigators. Subgroups of the BENEFIT study: risk of developing MS and treatment effect of interferon beta-1b. J Neurol 2008;255:480–87 doi:10.1007/s00415-007-0733-2 pmid:18004635

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Sormani MP,
    3. Bruzzi P

    . MRI lesions as a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Neurol 2013;12:669–76 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70103-0 pmid:23743084

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Río J,
    3. Castilló J,
    4. Rovira A, et al

    . Measures in the first year of therapy predict the response to interferon beta in MS. Mult Scler 2009;15:848–53 doi:10.1177/1352458509104591 pmid:19542263

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Sormani MP,
    3. Rio J,
    4. Tintorè M, et al

    . Scoring treatment response in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2013;19:605–12 doi:10.1177/1352458512460605 pmid:23012253

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Prosperini L,
    3. Mancinelli CR,
    4. De Giglio L, et al

    . Interferon beta failure predicted by EMA criteria or isolated MRI activity in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2014;20:566–76 doi:10.1177/1352458513502399 pmid:23999607

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Freedman MS,
    3. Selchen D,
    4. Arnold DL, et al

    ; Canadian Multiple Sclerosis Working Group. Treatment optimization in MS: Canadian MS Working Group updated recommendations. Can J Neurol Sci 2013;40:307–23 doi:10.1017/S0317167100014244 pmid:23603165

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Stangel M,
    3. Penner IK,
    4. Kallmann BA, et al

    . Towards the implementation of ‘no evidence of disease activity' in multiple sclerosis treatment: the multiple sclerosis decision model. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2015;8:3–13 doi:10.1177/1756285614560733 pmid:25584069

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Healy BC,
    3. Glanz BI,
    4. Stankiewicz J, et al

    . A method for evaluating treatment switching criteria in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2010;16:1483–89 doi:10.1177/1352458510379245 pmid:20736245

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Kanda T,
    3. Ishii K,
    4. Kawaguchi H, et al

    . High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 2014;270:834–41 doi:10.1148/radiol.13131669 pmid:24475844

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. McDonald RJ,
    3. McDonald JS,
    4. Kallmes DF, et al

    . Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015;275:772–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025 pmid:25742194

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Lohrke J,
    3. Frisk AL,
    4. Frenzel T, et al

    . Histology and gadolinium distribution in the rodent brain after the administration of cumulative high doses of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2017;52:324–33 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000344 pmid:28323657

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Ramalho J,
    3. Semelka RC,
    4. Ramalho M, et al

    . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulation and toxicity: an update. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1192–98 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4615 pmid:26659341

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
38. 38.↵
    2. Runge VM

    . Safety of the gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging, focusing in part on their accumulation in the brain and especially the dentate nucleus. Invest Radiol 2016;51:273–79 pmid:26945278

    PubMed
39. 39.↵
    2. Olchowy C,
    3. Cebulski K,
    4. Lasecki M, et al

    . The presence of the gadolinium-based contrast agent depositions in the brain and symptoms of gadolinium neurotoxicity: a systematic review. PLoS One 2017;12:e0171704 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171704 pmid:28187173

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    2. Stojanov DA,
    3. Aracki-Trenkic A,
    4. Vojinovic S, et al

    . Increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W magnetic resonance images in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlation with cumulative dose of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent, gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2016;26:807–15 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3879-9 pmid:26105022

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    2. Cao Y,
    3. Huang DQ,
    4. Shih G, et al

    . Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:414–19 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15327 pmid:26700156

    CrossRefPubMed
42. 42.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Haase R,
    4. Kickingereder P, et al

    . Pediatric brain: no increased signal intensity in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after consecutive exposure to a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent. Radiology 2017;283:828–36 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162980 pmid:28273007

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Haase R,
    4. Kieslich PJ, et al

    . No signal intensity increase in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images after more than 20 serial injections of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 2017;282:699–707 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016162241 pmid:27925871

    CrossRefPubMed
44. 44.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Weberling LD,
    4. Kieslich PJ, et al

    . Intraindividual analysis of signal intensity changes in the dentate nucleus after consecutive serial applications of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2016;51:683–90 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000308 pmid:27495187

    CrossRefPubMed
45. 45.↵
    2. Schlemm L,
    3. Chien C,
    4. Bellmann-Strobl J, et al

    . Gadopentetate but not gadobutrol accumulates in the dentate nucleus of multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler 2017;23:963–72 doi:10.1177/1352458516670738 pmid:27679460

    CrossRefPubMed
46. 46.↵
    2. Langner S,
    3. Kromrey ML,
    4. Kuehn JP

    . Repeated intravenous administration of gadobutrol does not lead to increased signal intensity on unenhanced T1-weighted images-a voxel-based whole brain analysis. Eur Radiol 2017 Mar 13. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4777-0 pmid:28289935

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    2. Robert P,
    3. Lehericy S,
    4. Grand S, et al

    . T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats: difference between linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol 2015;50:473–80 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000181 pmid:26107651

    CrossRefPubMed