Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Currently used non-specific extracellular MR contrast media

  • Contrast Media
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Magnetic resonance contrast agents have demonstrated their clinical usefulness in a variety of organs for improved detection of various neoplastic, inflammatory and functional abnormalities. Gadolinium chelates are the most widely used. They are extracellular, non-specific contrast agents. Their use in many clinical indications is justified because, in conjunction with improved imaging techniques, these safe and image-enhancing contrast agents add morphologic and functional information compared with unenhanced MR images. This article describes the commercially available compounds, and summarizes their approval status on the international market regarding indications and doses. Their mechanisms of action, biodistributions, toxicities and tolerance profiles in normal and high-risk patient populations are described. Additionally, this article reviews the specific recommendations by the manufacturers for patients at risk. Finally, their main clinical applications are reviewed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2a–d.
Fig. 3a, b.
Fig. 4a–d.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mathur-de Vré R, Lemort M (1995) Biophysical properties and clinical applications of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Br J Radiol 68:225–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shellock FG, Kanal E (1999) Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:477–484

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brash RB (1992) New directions in the development of MR imaging contrast media. Radiology 183:1–11

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brash RC, Weinmann HJ, Wesbey GE (1984) Contrast enhanced NMR imaging: animal study using gadolinium-DTPA complex. AJR 142:625–630

    Google Scholar 

  5. Van Beers BE, Gallez B, Pringot J (1997) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 203:297–306

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rinck PA, Muller RN (1999) Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 9:998–1004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tweedle MF, Wedeking P, Krishan K (1995) Biodistribution of radiolabeled, formulated gadopentetate, gadoteridol, gadoterate, and gadodiamide in mice and rats. Invest Radiol 30:372–380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Oksendal A, Hals P (1993) Biodistribution and toxicity of MR imaging contrast media. J Magn Reson Imaging 3:157–165

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang C (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Designs and physiochemical properties of gadodiamide. Invest Radiol 28 (Suppl 1):521–527

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cacheris W, Quay S, Rocklaye S (1980) The relationship between thermodynamics and the toxicity of gadolinium complexes. Magn Reson Imaging 8:467–481

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harpur E, Worah D, Hals P et al. (1993) Preclinical safety assessment and pharmacokinetics of gadodiamide injection: a new magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Invest Radiol 28:528–543

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tweedle MF, Ealon S, Eckelman W et al. (1988) Comparative chemical structure and pharmacokinetics of MRI contrast agents. Invest Radiol 23 (Suppl 1):236–239

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tweedle MF (1992) Physicochemical properties of gadoteridol and other magnetic resonance contrast agents. Invest Radiol 27 (Suppl 1):52–56

    Google Scholar 

  14. Runge VM, Parker JR (1997) Worldwide clinical safety assessment of gadoteridol injection: an update. Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 5):243–245

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelson KI, Gifford LM, Lauber-Huber C, Gross CA, Lasser TA (1995) Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2:349–443

    Google Scholar 

  16. Niendorf HP, Haustein J, Cornelius I, Alhassan A, Clauss W (1991) Safety of gadolinium-DTPA: extended clinical experience. Magn Reson Med 22:222–228

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kanal E, Applegate G, Gillen C (1990) Review of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis in 5260 cases receiving gadolinium-DTPA by bolus injection. Radiology 177:159

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tweedle MF (1997) The proHance story: the making of a novel MRI contrast agent. Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 5):S225–S230

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yuh WTC, Parker JR, Carvlin MJ (1997) Indication-related dosing for resonance contrast media. Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 5):S269–S275

    Google Scholar 

  20. Yuh WTC, Nguyen HD, Tali ET et al. (1994) Delineation of gliomas with various doses of MR contrast material. Am J Neuroradiol 15:983–989

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Prince MR (1998) Contrast-enhanced MR angiography: theory and optimization. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am 6:257–267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Haustein J, Laniado M, Niendorf HP et al. (1993) Triple-dose versus standard-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine: a randomized study in 199 patients. Radiology 186:855–860

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yuh WTC, Fisher DJ, Engelken JD et al. (1991) MR evaluation of CNS tumors: dose comparison study with gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadoteridol. Radiology 180:485–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Szopinski K, Szopinska M, Borowka A, Jakubovski W (2000) Magnetic resonance urography: initial experience of a low dose Gd-DTPA-enhanced technique. Eur Radiol 10:1158–1164

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Olukotun AY, Parker JR, Meeks MJ, Lucas MA, Fowler DR, Lucas TR (1995) Safety of gadoteridol injection: US clinical trial experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 5:17–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohan RH, Leder RA, Herzberg AJ et al. (1991) Extravascular toxicity of two magnetic resonance contrast agents: preliminary experience in the rat. Invest Radiol 26:224–226

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Murphy KJ, Brunberg JA, Cohan RH (1996) Adverse reaction to gadolinium constrast media: a review of 36 cases. AJR 167:847–849

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Niendorf HP, Alhassan A, Haustein J, Clauss W, Cornelius I (1993) Safety and risk of gadolinium-DTPA: extended clinical experience after more than 5,000,000 applications. Adv MRI Contrast 2:12–19

    Google Scholar 

  29. Runge VM (2000) Safety of approved MR contrast media for intravenous injection. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:205–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eldevik OP, Brunberg JA (1994) Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR of brain: clinical utility and safety in patients younger than two years of age. AJNR 15:1001–1008

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanquiret S, Christope C, Greef DD, Gordon P, Perlemuller N (1996) Clinical evaluation of gadodiamide injection in pediatric MR imaging. Pediatric Radiol 26:806–810

    Google Scholar 

  32. Niess AC, Le Mignon MM, Vitry A, Caille JM (1991) Efficacité et tolérance du DOTA-Gd lors d'une enquête multicentrique européenne. Rev Im Med 3:383–387

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ball WJ, Nadel S, Zimmerman R et al. (1993) Phase III multicenter clinical investigation to determine the safety and efficacy of gadoteridol in children suspected of having neurologic disease. Radiology 186:769–774

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Yoshikawa K, Davies A (1997) Safety of ProHance in special population. Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 5):246–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haustein J, Niendorf H, Krestin G et al. (1992) Renal tolerance of gadolinium-DTPA dimeglumine in patients with chronic renal failure. Invest Radiol 27:153–156

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bellin MF, Deray G, Assogba U et al. (1992) Gd-DOTA: evaluation of its renal tolerance in patients with chronic renal failure. Magn Reson Imaging 10:115–118

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P et al. (2001) Renal tolerance of a neutral gadolinium chelate (gadobutrol) in patients with chronic renal failure: results of a randomized study. Radiology 218:651–657

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tombach B, Heindel W (2002) Value of 1.0 M gadolinium chelates: review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 12:1550–1556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tombach B, Bremer C, Reimer P et al. (2002) Using highly concentrated gadobutrol as an MR contrast agent in patients also requiring hemodialysis: safety and dialysability. AJR 178:105–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schmiedl U, Maravilla K, Gerlach R, Dowling C (1990) Excretion of gadopentetate dimeglumine in human breast milk. AJR 154:1305–1306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Rojski N, Weinreb J, Lih A (1993) Quantitative analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine excreted in breast milk. J Magn Reson Imaging 3:131–132

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein NM, Frenzel T et al. (2000) Gadopentetate dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation. Radiology 216:555–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Colosimo C, Manfredi R, Tartaglione T (1997) Contrast-enhanced issues in the MR evaluation of the central nervous system. Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 5):231–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hamm B, Thoeni RF, Gould RG et al. (1994) Focal liver lesions: characterization with nonenhanced and dynamic contrast-material-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 190:417–423

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bartolozzi C, Lencioni R, Donati F, Cioni D (1999) Abdominal MR: liver and pancreas. Eur Radiol 9:1496–1512

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Delorme S, Knopp MV (1998) Non-invasive vascular imaging: assessing tumour vascularity. Eur Radiol 8:517–527

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ho KY, Leiner T, de Haan MW, van Engelshoven JM (1999) Peripheral MR angiography. Eur Radiol 9:1765–1774

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mahfouz AE, Hamm B, Taupitz M (1997) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver: a clinical overview. Eur Radiol 7:507–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Saeed M, Higgings CB, Geschwind JF, Wendland MF (2000) T1-relaxation kinetics of extracellular, intracellular and intravascular MR agents in normal and acutely reperfused infarcted myocardium using echo-planar MR imaging. Eur Radiol 10:310–318

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sze G, Stimac GK, Barlett C et al. (1990) Multicenter study of gadopentetate dimeglumine as an MR contrast agent: evaluation in patients with spinal tumors. AJNR 11:967–974

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Yamashita Y, Mitsuzaki K, Yi T et al. (1996) Small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver damage: prospective comparison of detection with dynamic MR imaging and helical CT of the whole liver. Radiology 200:79–84

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Oi H, Mukarami T, Kim T et al. (1996) Dynamic MR imaging and early-phase helical CT for detecting small intrahepatic metastases of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR 166:369–374

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Scialpi M, Maggio A di, Midiri M, Loperfido A, Angelelli G, Rotondo A (2000) Small renal masses: assessment of lesion characterization and vascularity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with fat suppression. AJR 175:751–757

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Balci NC, Semelka RC, Patt RH et al. (1999) Complex renal cysts: findings on MR imaging. AJR 172:1495–1500

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Saez F, Urresola A, Larena JA et al. (2000) Endometrial carcinoma: assessment of myometrial invasion with plain and gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:460–466

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kinoshita T, Ishii K, Naganuma H, Higashiiwai H (2000) MR findings of ovarian tumours with cystic components. Br J Radiol 73:333–339

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht M, Jager GJ et al. (1999) Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:295–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hayashi N, Tochigi H, Shiraishi T, Takeda K, Kawamura J (2000) A new staging criterion for bladder carcinoma using gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal surface coil: a comparison with ultrasonography. Br J Urol 85:32–36

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Glockner JF (2001) Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography: applications for abdominal imaging. RadioGraphics 21:357–370

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. White-Nunes L, Schnall MD, Orel SG et al. (1999) Correlation of lesion appearance and histologic findings for the nodes of a breast MR imaging interpretation model. RadioGraphics 19:79–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fisher U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic apprach. Radiol 213:881–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL et al. (1997) Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 205:837–842

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. van der Woude HJ, Verstraete KL, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, Hermans J, Bloem JL (1998) Musculoskeletal tumors: Does fast dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging contribute to the characterization? Radiology 208:821–828

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Paris XI, University Hospital Paul-Brousse AP-HP, 12 avenue Paul Vaillant-Couturier, 94804, Villejuif Cedex, France

    M. F. Bellin & S. Morel-Precetti

  2. Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, 40 avenue de Verdun, 94010, Créteil Cedex, France

    M. Vasile

Authors
  1. M. F. Bellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Vasile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Morel-Precetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. F. Bellin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bellin, M.F., Vasile, M. & Morel-Precetti, S. Currently used non-specific extracellular MR contrast media. Eur Radiol 13, 2688–2698 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1912-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1912-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation