Detection of intracranial metastases: a multicenter, intrapatient comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with routinely used contrast agents at equal dosage.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) with other commercially available MRI contrast agents for the detection of intracranial metastases. METHODS: A retrospective assessment was performed on MR images from 22 patients enrolled in a prior phase II clinical trial of gadobenate dimeglumine. Each patient underwent two examinations: a first examination with one of three "comparator" agents (gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadodiamide, and gadoterate meglumine) at a dosage of either 0.1 or 0.2 mmol/kg, and then a similar examination with gadobenate dimeglumine at equal dosage. All images were evaluated randomly for lesion number and location in unpaired and then paired fashion by two independent, masked neuroradiologists. A third assessor performed quantitative assessments on the available complete sets of digitally recorded images (10 cases). RESULTS: The findings for the comparator agents were pooled. Sensitivity for lesion detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (93%-100%) was markedly superior to that of comparator-enhanced examinations (65%-73%). The increase of lesion-to-brain contrast of the main lesion was consistently greater with gadobenate dimeglumine than with comparator agents relative to unenhanced contrast (+43% vs. +27%). CONCLUSIONS: Gadobenate dimeglumine proved to be a more efficacious agent than comparator contrast agents for the detection of intracranial metastatic lesions: superior efficacy was noted by both reviewers for total lesion count as well as for sensitivity and positive predictive value for lesion detection. The higher relaxivity of gadobenate dimeglumine might explain the superior sensitivity of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI for the detection of central nervous system metastases.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of a new liposomal liver-specific contrast agent for CT: results of clinical testing in nonpatient volunteers.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of BR21, a liposome-encapsulated iomeprol formulation, in nonpatient volunteers. METHODS: This was a single-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending dose study in 30 adult, male nonpatient volunteers, randomized to receive a single intravenous bolus (2 mL/s) of BR21 (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mL/kg, four volunteers per dose level) or matched volumes of placebo (0.9% saline, 10 volunteers). The safety controls performed consisted of preand postdose complete physical examinations, measurement of vital signs, electrocardiographic controls, clinical laboratory investigations (hematology, serum chemistry, and urinalysis), and monitoring of adverse events. The safety controls and monitoring of subjects for adverse events continued up to 7 days after the dose. For pharmacokinetic analysis, the determination of total iomeprol content was performed by a high-performance liquid chromatography assay procedure in blood, urine, and fecal samples collected before the dose and serially after the dose, up to 120 hours. RESULTS: No serious adverse events occurred throughout the study. All nonserious adverse events were minor and mild in intensity and rapidly resolved without treatment. No difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed among the various doses of BR21 and between BR21 and placebo. There were no clinically significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiographic parameters, or clinical laboratory findings. Iomeprol blood level decay can be described by a three-exponential function, consistent with a distribution phase (range, t1/2 0.12-0.21 hours), a fast elimination phase (range, t1/2 1.2-1.5 hours), and a slow elimination phase from a deep compartment (range, t1/2 3.3-4.5 hours). There was an apparent linearity in the relation between the area under the curve and the dose. Urinary elimination of unchanged iomeprol accounted for 89% to 90% of injected dose within 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: BR21 appeared to be safe and well tolerated in nonpatient subjects. Its pharmacokinetic profile was compatible with nonspecific distribution into the extracellular fluid space and specific distribution into a deep compartment.