Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: Results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial

  • Bernd Tombach
  • , Klaus Bohndorf
  • , Wolfgang Brodtrager
  • , Claus D. Claussen
  • , Christoph Düber
  • , Michael Galanski
  • , Eckhardt Grabbe
  • , Giacomo Gortenuti
  • , Michael Kuhn
  • , Walter Gross-Fengels
  • , Renate Hammerstingl
  • , Brigitte Happel
  • , Gertraud Heinz-Peer
  • , Gregor Jung
  • , Thomas Kittner
  • , Roberto Lagalla
  • , Philipp Lengsfeld
  • , Reinhard Loose
  • , Raymond H.G. Oyen
  • , Pietro Pavlica
  • Christiane Pering, Roberto Pozzi-Mucelli, Thorsten Persigehl, Peter Reimer, Nomdo S. Renken, Götz M. Richter, Ernst J. Rummeny, Fritz Schäfer, Malgorzata Szczerbo-Trojanowska, Andrzej Urbanik, Thomas J. Vogl, Paul Hajek
  • Paracelsus Klinikum Osnabrück
  • University of Münster
  • University Hospital Augsburg
  • AÖKH WienerNeustadt
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen
  • Universitätsmedizin Mannheim
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
  • Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
  • Ospedale Maggiore
  • Hamburg-Allgemeines Krankenhaus Wandsbeck
  • Klinikum der J. W. Goethe-Universität
  • Medical University of Vienna
  • Abteilung für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie
  • Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden
  • University of Palermo
  • Therapeutic Research Group Women's Healthcare Bayer Schering Pharma AG
  • Klinikum Nord
  • Leuven University Center for Metabolic Bone Diseases
  • Ospedale M. Malpighi
  • University of Trieste
  • Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe
  • Erasmus University Medical Center
  • Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
  • University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein
  • AM w Lublinie
  • Jagiellonian University Medical College

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations

Abstract

The purpose of this phase III clinical trial was to compare two different extracellular contrast agents, 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine, for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with known or suspected focal renal lesions. Using a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized study design, both contrast agents were compared in a total of 471 patients regarding their diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity to correctly classify focal lesions of the kidney. To test for noninferiority the diagnostic accuracy rates for both contrast agents were compared with CT results based on a blinded reading. The average diagnostic accuracy across the three blinded readers ('average reader') was 83.7% for gadobutrol and 87.3% for gadopentate dimeglumine. The increase in accuracy from precontrast to combined precontrast and postcontrast MRI was 8.0% for gadobutrol and 6.9% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Sensitivity of the average reader was 85.2% for gadobutrol and 88.7% for gadopentate dimeglumine. Specificity of the average reader was 82.1% for gadobutrol and 86.1% for gadopentate dimeglumine. In conclusion, this study documents evidence for the noninferiority of a single i.v. bolus injection of 1.0 M gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine in the diagnostic assessment of renal lesions with CE-MRI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2610-2619
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Radiology
Volume18
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Diagnostic differentiation
  • Gadobutrol
  • Gadopentate dimeglumine
  • MRI
  • Noninferiority
  • Renal lesions

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of 1.0 M gadobutrol and 0.5 M gadopentate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI in 471 patients with known or suspected renal lesions: Results of a multicenter, single-blind, interindividual, randomized clinical phase III trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this