Gadolinium Retention in the Brain: An MRI Relaxometry Study of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   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
2. 2.↵
   2. Robert P,
   3. Fingerhut S,
   4. Factor C, et al

   . One-year retention of gadolinium in the brain: comparison of gadodiamide and gadoterate meglumine in a rodent model. Radiology 2018;288:424–33 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018172746 pmid:29786486

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

   . Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015;275:783–91 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150337 pmid:25848905

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Jaulent P,
   3. Hannoun S,
   4. Kocevar G, et al

   . Weekly enhanced T1-weighted MRI with gadobutrol injections in patients with MS: is there a signal intensity increase in the dentate nucleus and the globus pallidus? Eur J Radiol 2018;105:204–08 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.06.011 pmid:30017281

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Bjørnerud A,
   3. Vatnehol SA,
   4. Larsson C, et al

   . Signal enhancement of the dentate nucleus at unenhanced MR imaging after very high cumulative doses of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent gadobutrol: an observational study. Radiology 2017;285:434–44 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017170391 pmid:28885891

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Rossi Espagnet MC,
   3. Bernardi B,
   4. Pasquini L, et al

   . Signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance in the globus pallidus and dentate nucleus after serial administrations of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent in children. Pediatr Radiol 2017;47:1345–52 doi:10.1007/s00247-017-3874-1 pmid:28526896

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Splendiani A,
   3. Perri M,
   4. Marsecano C, et al

   . Effects of serial macrocyclic-based contrast materials gadoterate meglumine and gadobutrol administrations on gadolinium-related dentate nuclei signal increases in unenhanced T1-weighted brain: a retrospective study in 158 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Radiol Med 2018;123:125–34 doi:10.1007/s11547-017-0816-9 pmid:28952018

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Radbruch A,
   3. Quattrocchi CC

   . Interpreting signal-intensity ratios without visible T1 hyperintensities in clinical gadolinium retention studies. Pediatr Radiol 2017;47:1688–89 doi:10.1007/s00247-017-3970-2 pmid:28914340

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   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
10. 10.↵
    2. Tedeschi E,
    3. Palma G,
    4. Canna A, et al

    . In vivo dentate nucleus MRI relaxometry correlates with previous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Eur Radiol 2016;26:4577–84 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4245-2 pmid:26905870

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Müller A,
    3. Jurcoane A,
    4. Mädler B, et al

    . Brain relaxometry after macrocyclic Gd-based contrast agent. Clin Neuroradiol 2017;27:459–68 doi:10.1007/s00062-017-0608-6 pmid:28741075

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Rohrer M,
    3. Bauer H,
    4. Mintorovitch J, et al

    . Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715–24 doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000184756.66360.d3 pmid:16230904

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    European Medicines Agency. EMA's final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans. 625317Accessed January 29, 2019. July 21, 2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emas-final-opinion-confirms-restrictions-use-linear-gadolinium-agents-body-scans. Accessed January 29, 2019.
14. 14.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns that gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are retained in the body; requires new class warnings. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-warns-gadolinium-based-contrast-agents-gbcas-are-retained-body. Accessed February 15, 2019.
15. 15.↵
    2. Welk B,
    3. McArthur E,
    4. Morrow SA, et al

    . Association between gadolinium contrast exposure and the risk of parkinsonism. JAMA 2016;316:96–98 doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8096 pmid:27380348

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. McDonald RJ

    . No evidence gadolinium causes neurologic harm. RSNA 2017 Daily Bulletin. December 1, 2017. https://rsna2017.rsna.org/dailybulletin/index.cfm?pg=17fri10. Accessed September 5, 2018.
17. 17.↵
    2. Forslin Y,
    3. Shams S,
    4. Hashim F, et al

    . Retention of gadolinium-based contrast agents in multiple sclerosis: retrospective analysis of an 18-year longitudinal study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1311–16 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5211 pmid:28495943

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
18. 18.↵
    2. Vågberg M,
    3. Axelsson M,
    4. Birgander R, et al

    . Guidelines for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of multiple sclerosis: recommendations of the Swedish Multiple Sclerosis Association and the Swedish Neuroradiological Society. Acta Neurol Scand 2017;135:17–24 doi:10.1111/ane.12667 pmid:27558404

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Warntjes JB,
    3. Leinhard OD,
    4. West J, et al

    . Rapid magnetic resonance quantification on the brain: optimization for clinical usage. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:320–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.21635 pmid:18666127

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Mangeat G,
    3. Ouellette R,
    4. Warntjes JBM, et al

    . Accuracy and precision of Synthetic MRI. In: Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology, Paris, France. June 16–21, 2018
21. 21.↵
    2. Vågberg M,
    3. Lindqvist T,
    4. Ambarki K, et al

    . Automated determination of brain parenchymal fraction in multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:498–504 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3262 pmid:22976234

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
22. 22.↵
    2. Granberg T,
    3. Uppman M,
    4. Hashim F, et al

    . Clinical feasibility of Synthetic MRI in multiple sclerosis: a diagnostic and volumetric validation study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1023–29 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4665 pmid:26797137

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Schmidt P,
    3. Gaser C,
    4. Arsic M, et al

    . An automated tool for detection of FLAIR-hyperintense white-matter lesions in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 2012;59:3774–83 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.032 pmid:22119648

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Ashburner J,
    3. Friston KJ

    . Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005;26:839–51 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 pmid:15955494

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. 25.↵
    2. Errante Y,
    3. Cirimele V,
    4. Mallio CA, et al

    . Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Invest Radiol 2014;49:685–90 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000072 pmid:24872007

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Yushkevich PA,
    3. Piven J,
    4. Hazlett HC, et al

    . User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116–28 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 pmid:16545965

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. Jenkinson M,
    3. Beckmann CF,
    4. Behrens TE, et al

    . FSL. Neuroimage 2012;62:782–90 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.015 pmid:21979382

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Benjamini Y,
    3. Hochberg Y

    . Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Methodological 1995;57:289–300 doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

    CrossRef
29. 29.↵
    2. Roccatagliata L,
    3. Vuolo L,
    4. Bonzano L, et al

    . Multiple sclerosis: hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with the secondary progressive subtype. Radiology 2009;251:503–10 doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081269 pmid:19401576

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Bond KM,
    3. Brinjikji W,
    4. Eckel LJ, et al

    . Dentate update: imaging features of entities that affect the dentate nucleus. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1467–74 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5138 pmid:28408628

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    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
32. 32.↵
    2. Jost G,
    3. Frenzel T,
    4. Boyken J, et al

    . Long-term excretion of gadolinium-based contrast agents: linear versus macrocyclic agents in an experimental rat model. Radiology 2019;290:340–48 doi:10.1148/radiol.2018180135 pmid:30422091

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Smith AP,
    3. Marino M,
    4. Roberts J, et al

    . Clearance of gadolinium from the brain with no pathologic effect after repeated administration of gadodiamide in healthy rats: an analytical and histologic study. Radiology 2017;282:743–51 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160905 pmid:27673510

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Chiaravalloti ND,
    3. DeLuca J

    . Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:1139–51 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70259-X pmid:19007738

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
35. 35.↵
    2. Thompson AJ,
    3. Banwell BL,
    4. Barkhof F, et al

    . Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–73 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2 pmid:29275977

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Mallio CA,
    3. Piervincenzi C,
    4. Gianolio E, et al

    . Absence of dentate nucleus resting-state functional connectivity changes in nonneurological patients with gadolinium-related hyperintensity on T1-weighted images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019 Jan 25. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1002/jmri.26669 pmid:30681245

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Cocozza S,
    3. Pontillo G,
    4. Lanzillo R, et al

    . MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in multiple sclerosis. Neuroradiology 2019;61:155–62 doi:10.1007/s00234-018-02150-4 pmid:30617409

    CrossRefPubMed