MR Contrast Media in Neuroimaging: A Critical Review of the Literature

Jonathan Breslau; Jeffrey G. Jarvik; David R. Haynor; W. T. Longstreth Jr; Daniel L. Kent; Kenneth R. Maravilla

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MR contrast media are commonly used but do not have evidence-based guidelines for their application. This investigation seeks to define specific methodological problems in the MR contrast media literature and to suggest guidelines for an improved study design.

METHODS: To evaluate the reported clinical efficacy of MR contrast media in neuroimaging, we performed a critical review of the literature. From 728 clinical studies retrieved via MEDLINE, we identified 108 articles that evaluated contrast media efficacy for a minimum of 20 patients per study. The articles were randomly assigned to four readers (a fifth reader reviewed all of the articles) who were blinded to article titles, authors, institutions, and journals of publication. The readers applied objective, well-established methodological criteria to assign each article a rating of A, B, C, or D.

RESULTS: One hundred one of 108 articles received a D rating, six received a C rating, and one received a B rating. In general, the Methods sections of the evaluated articles did not contain details that would allow the reader to calculate reliable measures of diagnostic accuracy, such as sensitivity and specificity. Specifically, a common problem was failure to establish and uniformly apply an acceptable standard of reference. In addition, images were not always interpreted independently from the reference standard. Radiologists and clinicians need to determine the applicability of any published study to their own practices. Unfortunately, the studies we reviewed commonly lacked clear descriptions of patient demographics, the spectrum of symptomatology, and the procedure for assembling the study cohort. Finally, small sample sizes with inadequate controls were presented in almost all of the articles.

CONCLUSION: Although MR contrast media are widely used and play an essential role in lesion detection and confidence of interpretation, no rigorous studies exist to establish valid sensitivity and specificity estimates for their application. On the basis of this review, we herein describe basic methods to document improvements in technology. Such studies are essential to devise measures of diagnostic accuracy, which can form the basis for further studies that will assess diagnostic and therapeutic impact and, ultimately, patient outcomes.

Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents have been widely applied since they were first available for clinical use in 1988. By March 1993, more than 5.4 million doses had been administered (1). At an approximate hospital charge of $150 per dose, the use of contrast material accounted for almost $1 billion during the first 6 years of its clinical application. Most contrast material was used in neuroimaging, with an established role in lesion detection, in characterization, and in improving radiologists' confidence regarding interpretation.

In the current environment of cost containment, an established role may not warrant continued government and corporate support for a specific technology. Increasingly, these financially involved entities require evidence-based practice guidelines and patient outcomes data based on rigorous technology assessment methodology. We sought to apply such criteria to the evidence for clinical efficacy; that is, to the probability that a patient will derive benefit, under optimum conditions, from contrast-enhanced MR neuroimaging. This analysis could yield evidence-based guidelines for the use of contrast material or serve as a demonstration of what is lacking in the evidence at this time.

Methods

Article Selection

We undertook a comprehensive literature search using the MEDLINE database, merging the subject headings “magnetic resonance imaging” and “contrast media” and the key words “nervous” or “brain” or “spine.” Limiting our search to the English literature until mid-1997, we found 728 clinical studies reporting on the use of contrast-based MR contrast media in neuroimaging. After excluding case reports, reviews, and articles reporting on fewer than 20 patients, we found a total of 108 articles evaluating the efficacy of MR contrast media. These 108 articles were randomly distributed among four readers, who were blinded to the titles, authors, institutions of origin, and journals of publication. A fifth blinded reader evaluated all the articles. Each qualifying article was thus rated twice, with disagreements resolved by discussion and consensus.

Rating Criteria

The articles were assigned a rating of high, intermediate, or low for each of seven well-established criteria. The criteria were previously published in technology assessment articles (2).

The Technical Quality of the Index Test rates the technical quality of the MR equipment and contrast dosage used in a study. High-quality articles reported the administration of at least a 0.1-mmol/kg dose of contrast agent with a magnet field strength of at least 1.0 T and a section thickness of not greater than 5 mm. Intermediate-quality articles had medium field (>0.3 T) magnets or large or unspecified section thickness. Low-quality articles had low-field magnets or did not specify the index test quality.

The Technical Quality of the Reference Test addresses the quality of the standard of reference applied in a study. High-quality reference tests included pathologic proof, surgical findings, or comprehensive clinical follow-up, with specific criteria for establishing the particular diagnosis. A rating of intermediate was assigned if the diagnostic criteria were incompletely defined. If the standard of reference was undefined, studies were rated low. A low rating was also assigned if no tests beyond the index test were applied.

The Application of the Reference Test evaluates the thoroughness with which the standard of reference was applied. A study was considered to be of high quality if it used the same reference test for all cases. Intermediate studies used different, but all acceptable, reference tests. Low-quality studies did not use an acceptable reference standard for all cases. If no standard of reference existed, articles were rated low for both reference test quality and application.

The Independence of Interpretation assesses the separation maintained between interpretation of the index and reference tests. If these two tests or standards were explicitly interpreted independently of each other, a rating of high was assigned. If either test review bias (lack of blinding to the final diagnosis when interpreting the index test) or diagnosis review bias (index test result influencing final diagnosis) was present, the article was rated intermediate. If both biases were present or if information was not available regarding independence of interpretation, an article was rated low for this criterion.

The Clinical Description refers to the detail with which the patients' clinical presentations were described. High-quality studies contained thorough clinical and demographic information that included at least age, sex, and percentage of patients displaying major relevant signs and symptoms. Studies with incomplete descriptions were considered to be of intermediate quality. When the description was limited (eg, “suspected intracranial pathology”) or nonexistent, an article was rated low.

The Cohort Assembly refers to the methods used to select cases for a study. A quality rating of high for cohort assembly required prospective enrollment from a primary care setting, with a range of clinical presentations. A cohort assembled in this fashion would have relatively little referral filtering. Alternatively, investigations of diseases generally not encountered in the primary care setting, such as complex partial seizures, could be rated high for cohort assembly as long as cases were accrued prospectively without workup bias. If cases were selected retrospectively from referral centers or if the fact of testing was the criterion for enrollment, the study was considered to be of intermediate quality. Finally, cases with workup bias (selection because of a positive index test result) or no description of cohort assembly were rated low.

The Sample Size refers to the number of cases and control subjects included. High-quality studies had at least 35 cases and 35 control subjects. A sample size of 35 is the minimum for which the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for a true sensitivity or specificity of 1.0 would exceed 0.9. If a study contained either fewer than 35 patients or fewer than 35 control participants, it was rated intermediate. If a study had both fewer than 35 patients and fewer than 35 control subjects, it was rated low.

A summary rating was assigned to each article based on the seven quality criteria (2, 3). An article was rated A if it was at least intermediate in clinical description but high in all other criteria. B articles were high in reference tests and independence but could be intermediate in all other categories. C articles could be low in clinical description but had to have at least intermediate ratings in all other categories. Articles not meeting C criteria received a D rating.

Results

Of a total of 756 ratings (seven criteria for 108 articles), there were 50 disagreements (7%). The disagreements were most commonly regarding the ratings of the reference test, cohort assembly, and clinical description.

Of the 108 articles rated, one was rated B (4), six were rated C, and 101 were rated D. The distribution of ratings among the seven quality criteria is listed separately (see the table). Index test quality received the highest ratings (61 of 108) because the reporting institutions generally used state-of-the-art equipment. The authors focused most of the attention on the quality of imaging. Reference test quality also frequently earned high or intermediate ratings (33 of 108 high) because of the availability of pathologic specimens or close surgical collaboration. The availability of pathologic proof often was the means of selection into a study. The difficulty in uniformly applying an acceptable standard of reference led to lower quality ratings in the application of the reference test. Authors failed to apply stringently the requirement that all analyzed cases have the same reference standard. In some articles, a few cases with no standard of reference could have been eliminated while maintaining an adequate sample size. Approximately one third of the articles did not use a reference standard. These shortcomings precluded the calculation of accuracy statistics because positivity and negativity of the contrast-enhanced MR imaging could not be assigned.

View this table:

Distribution of quality ratings for each criterion (n = 108)

Regarding the next four criteria, very few high ratings were assigned. Independence of interpretation, which rates the avoidance of review bias, is a central concern in study design. In general, the Methods section of articles did not document explicit separation between the interpretation of the contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings and the standard of reference. Intermediate articles usually described interpretation of the contrast-enhanced MR images without knowledge of the final diagnosis but did not describe the procedures used to prevent the MR findings from affecting the final diagnosis. The assessment of clinical description yielded only 11 high ratings. In many articles, the clinical description consisted only of summary statements, such as “suspected intracranial pathology.” It is likely that many studies could have been improved by including reviews of medical record. On the other hand, cohort assembly represents the most difficult aspect of study design for radiologists, who may have little influence over the spectrum of disease they see. Correspondingly, only six articles (5–10) were rated high for cohort assembly. Unless they have close clinician collaboration from the beginning of a study design, radiologists must focus on retrospective case selection. In addition, case accrual at a tertiary care center usually includes substantial referral filtering. Finally, almost all articles presented sample sizes that were inadequate to yield robust statistics and did not present control cases. Not one of the five articles with high ratings for sample size (5, 11–14) applied reference tests.

Discussion

This critical literature review, consisting of structured blinded ratings, was originally designed as a metaanalysis, to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the use of contrast material in neuroimaging. The available studies, unfortunately, did not themselves yield valid accuracy measures, which precluded metaanalysis. One finding of our study, therefore, is that no valid measures of sensitivity or specificity exist for the application of MR contrast material in neuroimaging.

We did apply our study design to uncover surprisingly prevalent methodological flaws. In a critical literature review evaluating diagnostic tests in general during a 16-year period, Reid et al (15) similarly found inadequate assessment of diagnostic tests, although use of methodological standards did increase during the study interval from 1978 to 1993. In their study, radiologic tests were the largest single category of diagnostic test evaluated. Although their results were described as particularly disturbing, our results document a much lower prevalence of acceptable methodological standards. For example, Reid et al reported that 47% of analyzed articles avoided review bias during the interval between 1990 and 1993, as compared with only 4% (four of 108) in our study.

The one article that was assigned a B rating contains basic methodological elements that any study of diagnostic accuracy should include. In 1992, Wiebe et al (4) reported their study using craniospinal MR imaging with contrast enhancement to serially examine patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). All patients underwent cranial and spinal MR imaging on at least three occasions at 13-week intervals, with additional imaging performed if clinical relapses occurred during the study period. The clinical judgment of a neurologist at a university MS clinic with respect to presence or absence of disease activity was used as the standard of reference. Patients with quiescent disease were included in the study. The examining neurologists were blinded to the MR findings, and the radiologists were blinded to the patients' clinical status. The article contains a table that clearly describes the spectrum of disease evaluated. In this manner, the authors were able to construct a standard two-by-two table showing test positivity and negativity, as well as the presence or absence of disease. The Methods section presents details that allow the reader to recognize the limitations in generalizing, which include a somewhat narrow spectrum of disease and a small sample size.

The reported accuracy statistics in the article by Wiebe et al (4), although favorable, were for the use of MR imaging overall. Contrast enhancement for cranial imaging was used only in those cases in which evidence of activity had already been noted on unenhanced sequences. However, contrast enhancement was the sole evidence of disease activity in 5% of all spinal cord images. These results parallel the clinical use of contrast material in the evaluation of patients with MS.

Because low-field MR systems are gaining acceptance, we undertook an informal analysis of our data and assigned high ratings to all articles for index test quality. We found that no article gained a higher overall rating, because the rating system values the presence and quality of a standard of reference over other criteria.

Conclusion

We have shown that strong evidence-based guidelines for the use of contrast material in neuroimaging cannot be derived from the current literature. In short, the clinical efficacy of contrast material remains unproved. Future investigations need to focus on constructing robust measures of diagnostic accuracy. These studies will require larger sources of funding to construct appropriate randomized controlled trials, as demonstrated by the highest rated article in our study. Researchers in neuroradiology need to apply such methodologies, which have been used successfully in advancing other areas of medicine. Only when we rigorously evaluate the ability of contrast material to aid in the diagnosis and exclusion of disease can we proceed to the evaluation of its diagnostic and therapeutic impact.

Footnotes

↵1 Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Society of Neuroradiology, Chicago, April 1995.
↵2 Address reprint requests to Jonathan Breslau, MD, Radiological Associates of Sacramento, 2801 K St, Suite 115, Sacramento, CA 95816.

Appendix — Articles reviewed:

Albert FK, Forsting M, Sartor K, Adams HP, Kunze S. Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging after resection of malignant glioma: objective evaluation of residual tumor and its influence on regrowth and prognosis. Neurosurgery 1994;34:45-60
PubMed
Allen ED, Byrd SE, Darling CF, Tomita T, Wilczynski MA. The clinical and radiological evaluation of primary brain neoplasms in children, part II: radiological evaluation. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:546-553
PubMed
Aslanian V, Lemaignen H, Bunouf P, Svaland MG, Borseth A, Lundby B. Evaluation of the clinical safety of gadodiamide injection, a new nonionic MRI contrast medium for the central nervous system: a European perspective. Neuroradiology 1996;38:537-541
PubMed
Baierl P, Muhlsteffen A, Haustein J, et al. Comparison of plain and Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR-imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 1990;20:515-519
CrossRef PubMed
Baleriaux D, Matos C, DeGreef D. Gadodiamide injection as a contrast medium for MRI of the central nervous system: a comparison with gadolinium-DOTA. Neuroradiology 1993;35:490-494
CrossRef PubMed
Ball WSJ, Parker JR, Davis PC, Glasier CM, Morris MR. Efficacy of gadoteridol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in children. Invest Radiol 1992;27:S45-S52
Ball WSJ, Nadel SN, Zimmerman RA, et al. Phase III multicenter clinical investigation to determine the safety and efficacy of gadoteridol in children suspected of having neurologic disease. Radiology 1993;186:769-774
PubMed
Bauer WM, Fenzl G, Vogl T, Fink U, Lissner J. Indications for the use of Gd-DTPA in MRI of the central nervous system: experiences in patients with cerebral and spinal diseases. Invest Radiol 1988;23(Suppl):S286-S288
Burke JW, Podrasky AE, Bradley WG. Meninges: benign postoperative enhancement on MR images. Radiology 1990;174:99-102
PubMed
Carvlin MJ, DeSimone DN, Meeks MJ. Phase II clinical trial of gadoteridol injection, a low-osmolal magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Invest Radiol 1992;27:S16-S21
Chong VFH, Fan Y, Khoo JBK. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intracranial spread: CT and MR characteristics. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:563-569
CrossRef PubMed
Davis PC, Hudgins PA, Peterman SB, Hoffman JCJ. Diagnosis of cerebral metastases: double-dose delayed CT vs. contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:293-300
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Debatin JF, Nadel SN, Gray L, et al. Phase III clinical evaluation of gadoteridol injection: experience in pediatric neuro-oncologic MR imaging. Pediatr Radiol 1992;10:101-108
DeSimone D, Morris M, Rhoda C, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of gadoteridol injection (a low osmolal magnetic resonance contrast agent): clinical trials report. Invest Radiol 1991;26:S212-S216
Deutsch AL, Howard M, Dawson EG. Lumbar spine following successful surgical discectomy: magnetic resonance imaging features and implications. Spine 1993;18:1054-1060
CrossRef PubMed
Ekholm S, Jonsson E, Sandvik L, et al. Tolerance and efficacy of omniscan (gadodiamide injection) in MR imaging of the central nervous system. Acta Radiol 1996;37:223-228
PubMed
Eldevik OP, Brunberg JA. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR of the brain: clinical utility and safety in patients younger than two years of age. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1001-1008
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Elster AD, Rieser GD. Gd-DTPA–enhanced cranial MR imaging in children: initial clinical experience and recommendations for its use. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:1265-1268
PubMed
Elster AD, Moody DM, Ball MR, Laster DW. Is Gd-DTPA required for routine cranial MR imaging? Radiology 1989;173:231-238
PubMed
Elster AD, DiPersio DA. Cranial postoperative site: assessment with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990;174:93-98
PubMed
Elster AD, Moody DM. Early cerebral infarction: gadopentetate dimeglumine enhancement. Radiology 1990;177:627-632
PubMed
Elster AD. MR contrast enhancement in brainstem and deep cerebral infarction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:1127-1132
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Elster AD, Mirza W. MR imaging in chronic partial epilepsy: role of contrast enhancement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:165-170
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Fazekas F, Fazekas G, Schmidt R, Kapeller P, Offenbacher H. Magnetic resonance imaging correlates of transient ischemic attacks. Stroke 1996;27:607-611
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Felix R, Schorner W, Laniado M, et al. Brain tumors: MR imaging with gadolinium-DTPA. Radiology 1985;156:681-688
PubMed
Filling-Katz MR, Choyke PL, Patronas NJ, et al. Radiologic screening for vonHippel-Lindau disease: the role of Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging of the CNS. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:743-755
PubMed
Filling-Katz MR, Choyke PL, Oldfield E, et al. Central nervous system involvement in vonHippel-Lindau disease. Neurology 1991;41:41-46
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Fischbein NJ, Prados MD, Wara W, Russo C, Edwards MSB, Barkovich AJ. Radiological classification of brain stem tumors: correlation of magnetic resonance imaging appearance with clinical outcome. Pediatr Neurosurg 1996;24:9-23
PubMed
Frank JA, Bash C, Stone L, Petrella J, Maloni H, McFarland H. . Acad Radiol 1996;3:S173-S175
Ge HL, Hirsch WL, Wolf GL, Rubin RA, Hackett RK. Diagnostic role of gadolinium-DTPA in pediatric neuroradiology: a retrospective review of 655 cases. Neuroradiology 1992;34:122-125
PubMed
Grane P, Tullberg T, Rydberg J, Lindgren L. Postoperative lumbar MR imaging with contrast enhancement: comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Acta Radiol 1996;37:366-372
PubMed
Greco A, McNamara MT, Lanthiez P, Quay SC, Michelozzi G. Gadodiamide injection: nonionic gadolinium chelate for MR imaging in the brain and spine: phase II–III clinical trial. Radiology 1990;176:451-456
PubMed
Haughton VM, Rimm AA, Czervionke LF, et al. Sensitivity of Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging of benign extraaxial tumors. Radiology 1988;166:829-833
PubMed
Haustein J, Laniado M, Niendorf HP, et al. Administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging of intracranial tumors: dosage and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:1199-1206
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Haustein J, Laniado M, Niendorf HP, et al. Triple-dose versus standard-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine: a randomized study in 199 patients. Radiology 1993;186:855-860
PubMed
Hesselink JR, Dunn WM, Healy ME, Hajek P, Baker L, Brahme FJ. Paramegnetic enhancement of cerebral lesions with gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol Suppl Stockh 1986;369:558-560
Hesselink JR, Healy ME, Press GA, Brahme FJ. Benefits of Gd-DTPA for MR imaging of intracranial abnormalities. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988;12:266-274
PubMed
Hudgins PA, Davis PC, Hoffman JCJ. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in children following surgery for brain tumor: spectrum of meningeal findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:301-307
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Hueftle MG, Modic MT, Ross JS, et al. Lumbar spine: postoperative MR imaging with Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1988;167:817-824
PubMed
Jackler RK, Shapiro MS, Dillon WP, Pitts L, Lanser MJ. Gadolinium-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in acoustic neuroma diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;102:670-677
PubMed
Jinkins JR, Osborn AG, Garrett DJ, Hunt S, Story JL. Spinal nerve enhancement with Gd-DTPA: MR correlation with the postoperative lumbosacral spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:383-394
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Kaplan GD, Aisen AM, Aravapalli SR. Preliminary clinical trial of gadodiamide injection: a new nonionic gadolinium contrast agent for MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:57-62
PubMed
Kilgore DP, Breger RK, Daniels DL, Pojunas KW, Williams AL, Haughton VM. Cranial tissues: normal MR appearance after intravenous injection of Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1986;160:757-761
PubMed
Kucharczyk W, Lee DH, McClarty B, Robertson WD, Hele MJ. Routine contrast enhancement for cranial magnetic resonance imaging: an analysis of its diagnostic value in adults. Can Assoc Radiol J 1991;42:199-209
PubMed
Lundby B, Gordon P, Hugo F. MRI in children given gadodiamide injection: safety and efficacy in CNS and body indications. Eur J Radiol 1996;23:190-196
CrossRef PubMed
Martin N, Sterkers O, Nahum H. Chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear cavities: Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990;176:399-405
PubMed
Menor F, Marti BL, Mulas F, Poyatos C, Cortina H. Neuroimaging in tuberous sclerosis: a clinicoradiological evaluation in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 1992;22:485-489
CrossRef PubMed
Meyers SP, Wildenhain S, Chess MA, Tarr RW. Postoperative evaluation for intracranial recurrence if medulloblastoma: MR findings with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1425-1434
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Moghrabi A, Kerby T, Tien RD, Friedman HS. Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in brainstem gliomas. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995;23:293-298
CrossRef PubMed
Morikawa M, Sato S, Numaguchi Y, Mihara F, Rothman MI. Spinal epidural venous plexus: its MR enhancement patterns and their clinical significance. Radiat Med 1996;14:221-227
PubMed
Muller W, Kramer G, Roder RG, Kuhnert A. Balance of T1-weighted images before and after application of a paramagnetic substance (Gd-DTPA). Neurosurg Rev 1987;10:117-122
PubMed
Myhr G, Rinck PA, Borseth A. Gadodiamide injection and gadopentetate dimeglumine: a double-blind study in MR imaging of the CNS. Acta Radiol 1992;33:405-409
PubMed
Nelson DR, Yuh WT, Waziri MH, et al. MR imaging of Hippel-Lindau disease: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:469-476
PubMed
Niendorf HP, Felix R, Laniado M, Schorner W, Kornmesser W, Claussen C. Magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial tumors using gadolinium-DTPA: initial experience with fast imaging. Acta Radiol Suppl Stockh 1986;369:561-563
Nishimura R, Takahashi M, Morishita S, Sumi M, Uozumi H, Sakamoto Y. MR Gd-DTPA enhancement of radiation brain injury. Radiat Med 1992;10:109-116
PubMed
Nishimura R, Takahashi M, Morishita S, Sumi M, Uozumi H, Sakamoto Y. MR imaging of late radiation brain injury. Radiat Med 1992;10:101-108
PubMed
Parizel PM, Baleriaux D, Rodesch G, et al. Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging of spinal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:1087-1096
PubMed
Parizel PM, Degryse HR, Gheuens J, et al. Gadolinium-DOTA enhanced MR imaging of intracranial lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:378-385
CrossRef PubMed
Post MJ, Sze G, Quencer RM, Eismont FJ, Green BA, Gahbauer H. Gadolinium-enhanced MR in spinal infection. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:721-729
PubMed
Powers TA, Partain CL, Kessler RM, et al. Central nervous system lesions in pediatric patients: Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1988;169:723-726
PubMed
Quint DJ, Eldevik OP, Cohen JK. Magnetic resonance imaging of normal meningeal enhancement at 1.5 T. Acad Radiol 1996;2:463-468
Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, et al. Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:1049-1052
PubMed
Robinson DA, Steiner RE, Young IR. The MR contribution after CT demonstration of supratentorial mass effect without additional localising features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988;12:275-279
PubMed
Rollins N, Mendelsohn D, Mulne A, et al. Recurrent medulloblastoma: frequency of tumor enhancement on Gd-DTPA MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:153-157
PubMed
Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ. Tears of the anulus fibrosus: assessment with Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989;10:1251-1254
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Schrader M, Gentili A, Bohlman H, Modic MT. MR imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine: assessment with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:771-776
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Carter J, Marcus RE, Bohlman H. Assessment of extradural degenerative disease with Gd-DTPA–enhanced MG imaging: correlation with surgical and pathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:151-157
PubMed
Runge VM, Schaible TF, Goldstein HA, et al. Gd DTPA: clinical efficacy. Radiographics 1988;8:147-159
PubMed
Runge VM, Bradley WG, Brant-Zawadzki M, et al. Clinical safety and efficacy of gadoteridol: a study in 411 patients with suspected intracranial and spinal disease. Radiology 1991;181:701-709
PubMed
Runge VM, Dean B, Lee C, Carolan F, Heard G. Phase III clinical evaluation of Gd-HP-DO3A in head and spine disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:47-56
PubMed
Runge VM, Bronen RA, Davis KR. Efficacy of gadoteridol for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine. Invest Radiol 1992;27:522-532
Russell EJ, Schaible TF, Dillon W, et al. Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study of gadopentetate as an MR contrast agent: evaluation in patients with cerebral lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:813-823
PubMed
Sanders WP, Silbergleit R, Spickler EM, Barkley GL, Mehta BA. Efficacy of gadolinium administration in magnetic resonance imaging screening of patients with complex partial seizures and results of a normal neurologic examination. Invest Radiol 1995;30:634-637
PubMed
Sartoretti-Schefer Idiopathic, herpetic and HIV-associated facial nerve palsies: abnormal MR enhancement patterns. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:479-485
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Schorner W, Schubeus P, Henkes H, Lanksch W, Felix R. “Meningeal sign”: a characteristic finding of meningiomas on contrast-enhanced MR images. Neuroradiology 1990;32:90-93
PubMed
Schroth G, Grodd W, Guhl L, Grauer M, Klose U, Niendorf HP. Magnetic resonance imaging in small lesions of the central nervous system: improvement by gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol 1987;28:667-672
PubMed
Schubeus P, Schorner W, Haustein J. Dosing of Gd-DTPA in MR imaging of intracranial tumors. Magn Reson Med 1991;22:249-254
PubMed
Schwaighofer BW, Klein MV, Wesbey G, Hesselink JR. Clinical experience with routine Gd-DTPA administration for MR imaging of the brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:11-17
PubMed
Seiderer M. Phase III clinical studies with gadoteridol for the evaluation of neurologic pathology: a European perspective. Invest Radiol 1992;27:533-538
Sharif HS, Clark DC, Aabed MY, et al. Granulomatous spinal infections: MR imaging. Radiology 1990;177:101-107
PubMed
Sherman JL, Stern BJ. Sarcoidosis of the CNS: comparison of unenhanced and enhanced MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:1293-1301
PubMed
Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1029-1036
PubMed
Stabler A, Bellan M, Weiss M, Grtner C, Brossman J, Reiser MF. MR imaging of enhancing intraosseous disk herniation (Schmorl's nodes). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:933-938
PubMed
Stack JP, Antoun NM, Jenkins JP, Metcalfe R, Isherwood J. Gadolinium-DTPA as a contrast agent in magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Neuroradiology 1988;30:145-154
CrossRef PubMed
Stack JP, Ransden RT, Antoun NM, Lye RH, Isherwood J, Jenkins JP. Magnetic resonance imaging of acoustic neuromas: the role of gadolinium-DTPA. Br J Radiol 1988;61:800-805
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Sze G, Krol G, Zimmerman RD, Deck MD. Intramedullary disease of the spine: diagnosis using gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:1193-1204
CrossRef PubMed
Sze G, Soletsky S, Bronen R, Krol G. MR imaging of the cranial meninges with emphasis on contrast enhancement and meningeal carcinomatosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989;10:965-975
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C, Heier L. Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:785-791
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Sze G, Brant-Zawadzki M, Haughton VM, et al. Multicenter study of gadodiamide injection as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the brain and spine. Radiology 1991;181:693-699
PubMed
Sze G, Brant-Zawadzki M, McNamara MT, et al. Use of the magnetic resonance contrast agent gadodiamide in the central nervous system: results of a multicenter trial. Invest Radiol 1993;28:S49-S55
Tam JK, Bradley WG, Goergen SK, et al. Patterns of contrast enhancement in the pediatric spine at MR imaging with single- and triple-dose gadolinium. Radiology 1996;198:273-278
PubMed
Tas MW, Barkhol F, van Walderveen MAA, Polman CH, Hommes OR, Valk J. The effect of gadolinium on the sensitivity and specificity of MR in the initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:259-264
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Tuite M, Ketonen L, Kieburtz K, Handy B. Efficacy of gadolinium in MR brain imaging of HIV-infected patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:257-263
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Tullberg T, Grane P, Isacson J. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of 36 patients one year after lumbar disc resection. Spine 1994;19:176-182
PubMed
Tullberg T, Grane P, Rydberg J, Isacson J. Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging one year after lumbar discectomy. Spine 1994;19:183-188
PubMed
Valk J, De SRG, Crezee FC, Hazenberg GJ, Thjaha SI. Gadolinium-DTPA in magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Neurosurg Rev 1987;10:87-92
PubMed
Valk J, De SRG, Crezee FC, Hazenberg GJ, Thjaha SI, Nauta JJ. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the brain using gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol 1987;28:659-665
PubMed
Valk J, Algra PR, Hazenberg GJ, Slooff WB, Svaland MG. A double-blind, comparative study of gadodiamide injection and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of the central nervous system. Neuroradiology 1993;35:173-177
CrossRef PubMed
Weingarten K, Ernst RJ, Jahre C, Zimmerman RD. Detection of residual or recurrent meningioma after surgery: value of enhanced vs. unenhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:645-650
PubMed
Wiebe S, Lee DH, Karlik SJ, et al. Serial cranial and spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1992;32:643-650
CrossRef PubMed
Yousem DM, Patrone PM, Grossman RI. Leptomeningeal metastases: MR evaluation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:255-261
PubMed
Yuh WT, Crain MR, Loes DJ, Greene GM, Ryals TJ, Sato Y. MR imaging of cerebral ischemia: findings in the first 24 hours. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:621-629
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Yuh WT, Fisher DJ, Engelken JD, et al. MR evaluation of CNS tumors: dose comparison study with gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadoteridol. Radiology 1991;180:485-491
PubMed
Yuh WT, Engelken JD, Muhonen MG, Mayr NA, Fisher DJ, Ehrhardt JC. Experience with high-dose gadolinium MR imaging in the evaluation of brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:335-345
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Yuh WT. Delineation of gliomas with various doses of MR contrast material. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:983-989
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Yuh WT. Phase III multicenter trial of high-dose gadoteridol in MR evaluation of brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1037-1051
Abstract/FREE Full Text
Zee CS, Segall HD, Destian S, Ahmadi J, Apuzzo ML. MRI of intraventricular cysticercosis: surgical implications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:932-939
PubMed
Zimmerman RA, Bilaniuk LT, Rebsamen S. Magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Neurosurg 1992;18:58-64
PubMed

References

↵
Carr JJ. Magnetic resonance contrast agents for neuroimaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 1994;4:43-54
PubMed
↵
Kent DL, Haynor DR, Larson EB, Deyo RA. Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis in adults: a metaanalysis of the accuracy of CT, MR and myelography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:1135-1144
PubMed
Kent DL, Haynor DR, Longstreth WT, Larson EB. The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:856-871
PubMed
↵
Wiebe S, Lee DH, Karlik SJ, et al. Serial cranial and spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1992;32:643-650
↵
Elster AD, Mirza W. MR imaging in chronic partial epilepsy: role of contrast enhancement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:165-170
Elster AD, Moody DM, Ball MR, Laster DW. Is Gd-DTPA required for routine cranial MR imaging? Radiology 1989;173:231-238
Kucharczyk W, Lee DH, McClarty B, Robertson WD, Hele MJ. Routine contrast enhancement for cranial magnetic resonance imaging: an analysis of its diagnostic value in adults. Can Assoc Radiol J 1991;42:199-209
Tullberg T, Grane P, Isacson J. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of 36 patients one year after lumbar disc resection. Spine 1994;19:176-182
Tas MW, Barkhol F, van Walderveen MAA, Polman CH, Hommes OR, Valk J. The effect of gadolinium on the sensitivity and specificity of MR in the initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:259-264
Sanders WP, Silbergleit R, Spickler EM, Barkley GL, Mehta BA. Efficacy of gadolinium administration in magnetic resonance imaging screening of patients with complex partial seizures and results of a normal neurologic examination. Invest Radiol 1995;30:634-637
Sze G, Brant-Zawadzki M, Haughton VM, Maravilla KR, McNamara MT, Kumar AJ. Multicenter study of gadodiamide injection as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the brain and spine. Radiology 1991;181:693-699
Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1029-1036
Frank JA, Bash C, Stone L, Petrella J, Maloni H, McFarland H. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. Acad Radiol 1996;3:S173-S175
Morikawa M, Sato S, Numaguchi Y, Mihara F, Rothman MI. Spinal epidural venous plexus: its MR enhancement patterns and their clinical significance. Radiat Med 1996;14:221-227
↵
Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. JAMA 1995;274:645-651
CrossRef PubMed

Received December 9, 1998.

View Abstract

In this issue

Download PDF

Email Article

Citation Tools

Cited By...

Exclusion of brain lesions: is MR contrast medium required after a negative fluid-attenuated inversion recovery sequence?

More in this TOC Section

Show more BRAIN

[1] Albert FK, Forsting M, Sartor K, Adams HP, Kunze S. Early postoperative magnetic resonance imaging after resection of malignant glioma: objective evaluation of residual tumor and its influence on regrowth and prognosis. Neurosurgery 1994;34:45-60
PubMed

[2] Allen ED, Byrd SE, Darling CF, Tomita T, Wilczynski MA. The clinical and radiological evaluation of primary brain neoplasms in children, part II: radiological evaluation. J Natl Med Assoc 1993;85:546-553
PubMed

[3] Aslanian V, Lemaignen H, Bunouf P, Svaland MG, Borseth A, Lundby B. Evaluation of the clinical safety of gadodiamide injection, a new nonionic MRI contrast medium for the central nervous system: a European perspective. Neuroradiology 1996;38:537-541
PubMed

[4] Baierl P, Muhlsteffen A, Haustein J, et al. Comparison of plain and Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR-imaging in children. Pediatr Radiol 1990;20:515-519
CrossRef PubMed

[5] Baleriaux D, Matos C, DeGreef D. Gadodiamide injection as a contrast medium for MRI of the central nervous system: a comparison with gadolinium-DOTA. Neuroradiology 1993;35:490-494
CrossRef PubMed

[6] Ball WSJ, Parker JR, Davis PC, Glasier CM, Morris MR. Efficacy of gadoteridol for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in children. Invest Radiol 1992;27:S45-S52

[7] Ball WSJ, Nadel SN, Zimmerman RA, et al. Phase III multicenter clinical investigation to determine the safety and efficacy of gadoteridol in children suspected of having neurologic disease. Radiology 1993;186:769-774
PubMed

[8] Bauer WM, Fenzl G, Vogl T, Fink U, Lissner J. Indications for the use of Gd-DTPA in MRI of the central nervous system: experiences in patients with cerebral and spinal diseases. Invest Radiol 1988;23(Suppl):S286-S288

[9] Burke JW, Podrasky AE, Bradley WG. Meninges: benign postoperative enhancement on MR images. Radiology 1990;174:99-102
PubMed

[10] Carvlin MJ, DeSimone DN, Meeks MJ. Phase II clinical trial of gadoteridol injection, a low-osmolal magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent. Invest Radiol 1992;27:S16-S21

[11] Chong VFH, Fan Y, Khoo JBK. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma with intracranial spread: CT and MR characteristics. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:563-569
CrossRef PubMed

[12] Davis PC, Hudgins PA, Peterman SB, Hoffman JCJ. Diagnosis of cerebral metastases: double-dose delayed CT vs. contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:293-300
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[13] Debatin JF, Nadel SN, Gray L, et al. Phase III clinical evaluation of gadoteridol injection: experience in pediatric neuro-oncologic MR imaging. Pediatr Radiol 1992;10:101-108

[14] DeSimone D, Morris M, Rhoda C, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of gadoteridol injection (a low osmolal magnetic resonance contrast agent): clinical trials report. Invest Radiol 1991;26:S212-S216

[15] Deutsch AL, Howard M, Dawson EG. Lumbar spine following successful surgical discectomy: magnetic resonance imaging features and implications. Spine 1993;18:1054-1060
CrossRef PubMed

[16] Ekholm S, Jonsson E, Sandvik L, et al. Tolerance and efficacy of omniscan (gadodiamide injection) in MR imaging of the central nervous system. Acta Radiol 1996;37:223-228
PubMed

[17] Eldevik OP, Brunberg JA. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR of the brain: clinical utility and safety in patients younger than two years of age. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1001-1008
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[18] Elster AD, Rieser GD. Gd-DTPA–enhanced cranial MR imaging in children: initial clinical experience and recommendations for its use. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:1265-1268
PubMed

[19] Elster AD, Moody DM, Ball MR, Laster DW. Is Gd-DTPA required for routine cranial MR imaging? Radiology 1989;173:231-238
PubMed

[20] Elster AD, DiPersio DA. Cranial postoperative site: assessment with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990;174:93-98
PubMed

[21] Elster AD, Moody DM. Early cerebral infarction: gadopentetate dimeglumine enhancement. Radiology 1990;177:627-632
PubMed

[22] Elster AD. MR contrast enhancement in brainstem and deep cerebral infarction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:1127-1132
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[23] Elster AD, Mirza W. MR imaging in chronic partial epilepsy: role of contrast enhancement. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:165-170
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[24] Fazekas F, Fazekas G, Schmidt R, Kapeller P, Offenbacher H. Magnetic resonance imaging correlates of transient ischemic attacks. Stroke 1996;27:607-611
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[25] Felix R, Schorner W, Laniado M, et al. Brain tumors: MR imaging with gadolinium-DTPA. Radiology 1985;156:681-688
PubMed

[26] Filling-Katz MR, Choyke PL, Patronas NJ, et al. Radiologic screening for vonHippel-Lindau disease: the role of Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging of the CNS. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:743-755
PubMed

[27] Filling-Katz MR, Choyke PL, Oldfield E, et al. Central nervous system involvement in vonHippel-Lindau disease. Neurology 1991;41:41-46
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[28] Fischbein NJ, Prados MD, Wara W, Russo C, Edwards MSB, Barkovich AJ. Radiological classification of brain stem tumors: correlation of magnetic resonance imaging appearance with clinical outcome. Pediatr Neurosurg 1996;24:9-23
PubMed

[29] Frank JA, Bash C, Stone L, Petrella J, Maloni H, McFarland H. . Acad Radiol 1996;3:S173-S175

[30] Ge HL, Hirsch WL, Wolf GL, Rubin RA, Hackett RK. Diagnostic role of gadolinium-DTPA in pediatric neuroradiology: a retrospective review of 655 cases. Neuroradiology 1992;34:122-125
PubMed

[31] Grane P, Tullberg T, Rydberg J, Lindgren L. Postoperative lumbar MR imaging with contrast enhancement: comparison between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Acta Radiol 1996;37:366-372
PubMed

[32] Greco A, McNamara MT, Lanthiez P, Quay SC, Michelozzi G. Gadodiamide injection: nonionic gadolinium chelate for MR imaging in the brain and spine: phase II–III clinical trial. Radiology 1990;176:451-456
PubMed

[33] Haughton VM, Rimm AA, Czervionke LF, et al. Sensitivity of Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging of benign extraaxial tumors. Radiology 1988;166:829-833
PubMed

[34] Haustein J, Laniado M, Niendorf HP, et al. Administration of gadopentetate dimeglumine in MR imaging of intracranial tumors: dosage and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:1199-1206
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[35] Haustein J, Laniado M, Niendorf HP, et al. Triple-dose versus standard-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine: a randomized study in 199 patients. Radiology 1993;186:855-860
PubMed

[36] Hesselink JR, Dunn WM, Healy ME, Hajek P, Baker L, Brahme FJ. Paramegnetic enhancement of cerebral lesions with gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol Suppl Stockh 1986;369:558-560

[37] Hesselink JR, Healy ME, Press GA, Brahme FJ. Benefits of Gd-DTPA for MR imaging of intracranial abnormalities. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988;12:266-274
PubMed

[38] Hudgins PA, Davis PC, Hoffman JCJ. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in children following surgery for brain tumor: spectrum of meningeal findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:301-307
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[39] Hueftle MG, Modic MT, Ross JS, et al. Lumbar spine: postoperative MR imaging with Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1988;167:817-824
PubMed

[40] Jackler RK, Shapiro MS, Dillon WP, Pitts L, Lanser MJ. Gadolinium-DTPA enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in acoustic neuroma diagnosis and management. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;102:670-677
PubMed

[41] Jinkins JR, Osborn AG, Garrett DJ, Hunt S, Story JL. Spinal nerve enhancement with Gd-DTPA: MR correlation with the postoperative lumbosacral spine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:383-394
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[42] Kaplan GD, Aisen AM, Aravapalli SR. Preliminary clinical trial of gadodiamide injection: a new nonionic gadolinium contrast agent for MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:57-62
PubMed

[43] Kilgore DP, Breger RK, Daniels DL, Pojunas KW, Williams AL, Haughton VM. Cranial tissues: normal MR appearance after intravenous injection of Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1986;160:757-761
PubMed

[44] Kucharczyk W, Lee DH, McClarty B, Robertson WD, Hele MJ. Routine contrast enhancement for cranial magnetic resonance imaging: an analysis of its diagnostic value in adults. Can Assoc Radiol J 1991;42:199-209
PubMed

[45] Lundby B, Gordon P, Hugo F. MRI in children given gadodiamide injection: safety and efficacy in CNS and body indications. Eur J Radiol 1996;23:190-196
CrossRef PubMed

[46] Martin N, Sterkers O, Nahum H. Chronic inflammatory disease of the middle ear cavities: Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1990;176:399-405
PubMed

[47] Menor F, Marti BL, Mulas F, Poyatos C, Cortina H. Neuroimaging in tuberous sclerosis: a clinicoradiological evaluation in pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 1992;22:485-489
CrossRef PubMed

[48] Meyers SP, Wildenhain S, Chess MA, Tarr RW. Postoperative evaluation for intracranial recurrence if medulloblastoma: MR findings with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1425-1434
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[49] Moghrabi A, Kerby T, Tien RD, Friedman HS. Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in brainstem gliomas. Pediatr Neurosurg 1995;23:293-298
CrossRef PubMed

[50] Morikawa M, Sato S, Numaguchi Y, Mihara F, Rothman MI. Spinal epidural venous plexus: its MR enhancement patterns and their clinical significance. Radiat Med 1996;14:221-227
PubMed

[51] Muller W, Kramer G, Roder RG, Kuhnert A. Balance of T1-weighted images before and after application of a paramagnetic substance (Gd-DTPA). Neurosurg Rev 1987;10:117-122
PubMed

[52] Myhr G, Rinck PA, Borseth A. Gadodiamide injection and gadopentetate dimeglumine: a double-blind study in MR imaging of the CNS. Acta Radiol 1992;33:405-409
PubMed

[53] Nelson DR, Yuh WT, Waziri MH, et al. MR imaging of Hippel-Lindau disease: value of gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:469-476
PubMed

[54] Niendorf HP, Felix R, Laniado M, Schorner W, Kornmesser W, Claussen C. Magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial tumors using gadolinium-DTPA: initial experience with fast imaging. Acta Radiol Suppl Stockh 1986;369:561-563

[55] Nishimura R, Takahashi M, Morishita S, Sumi M, Uozumi H, Sakamoto Y. MR Gd-DTPA enhancement of radiation brain injury. Radiat Med 1992;10:109-116
PubMed

[56] Nishimura R, Takahashi M, Morishita S, Sumi M, Uozumi H, Sakamoto Y. MR imaging of late radiation brain injury. Radiat Med 1992;10:101-108
PubMed

[57] Parizel PM, Baleriaux D, Rodesch G, et al. Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging of spinal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:1087-1096
PubMed

[58] Parizel PM, Degryse HR, Gheuens J, et al. Gadolinium-DOTA enhanced MR imaging of intracranial lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1989;13:378-385
CrossRef PubMed

[59] Post MJ, Sze G, Quencer RM, Eismont FJ, Green BA, Gahbauer H. Gadolinium-enhanced MR in spinal infection. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:721-729
PubMed

[60] Powers TA, Partain CL, Kessler RM, et al. Central nervous system lesions in pediatric patients: Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1988;169:723-726
PubMed

[61] Quint DJ, Eldevik OP, Cohen JK. Magnetic resonance imaging of normal meningeal enhancement at 1.5 T. Acad Radiol 1996;2:463-468

[62] Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, et al. Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:1049-1052
PubMed

[63] Robinson DA, Steiner RE, Young IR. The MR contribution after CT demonstration of supratentorial mass effect without additional localising features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1988;12:275-279
PubMed

[64] Rollins N, Mendelsohn D, Mulne A, et al. Recurrent medulloblastoma: frequency of tumor enhancement on Gd-DTPA MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:153-157
PubMed

[65] Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ. Tears of the anulus fibrosus: assessment with Gd-DTPA–enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989;10:1251-1254
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[66] Ross JS, Masaryk TJ, Schrader M, Gentili A, Bohlman H, Modic MT. MR imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine: assessment with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:771-776
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[67] Ross JS, Modic MT, Masaryk TJ, Carter J, Marcus RE, Bohlman H. Assessment of extradural degenerative disease with Gd-DTPA–enhanced MG imaging: correlation with surgical and pathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;154:151-157
PubMed

[68] Runge VM, Schaible TF, Goldstein HA, et al. Gd DTPA: clinical efficacy. Radiographics 1988;8:147-159
PubMed

[69] Runge VM, Bradley WG, Brant-Zawadzki M, et al. Clinical safety and efficacy of gadoteridol: a study in 411 patients with suspected intracranial and spinal disease. Radiology 1991;181:701-709
PubMed

[70] Runge VM, Dean B, Lee C, Carolan F, Heard G. Phase III clinical evaluation of Gd-HP-DO3A in head and spine disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 1991;1:47-56
PubMed

[71] Runge VM, Bronen RA, Davis KR. Efficacy of gadoteridol for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and spine. Invest Radiol 1992;27:522-532

[72] Russell EJ, Schaible TF, Dillon W, et al. Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study of gadopentetate as an MR contrast agent: evaluation in patients with cerebral lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:813-823
PubMed

[73] Sanders WP, Silbergleit R, Spickler EM, Barkley GL, Mehta BA. Efficacy of gadolinium administration in magnetic resonance imaging screening of patients with complex partial seizures and results of a normal neurologic examination. Invest Radiol 1995;30:634-637
PubMed

[74] Sartoretti-Schefer Idiopathic, herpetic and HIV-associated facial nerve palsies: abnormal MR enhancement patterns. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:479-485
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[75] Schorner W, Schubeus P, Henkes H, Lanksch W, Felix R. “Meningeal sign”: a characteristic finding of meningiomas on contrast-enhanced MR images. Neuroradiology 1990;32:90-93
PubMed

[76] Schroth G, Grodd W, Guhl L, Grauer M, Klose U, Niendorf HP. Magnetic resonance imaging in small lesions of the central nervous system: improvement by gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol 1987;28:667-672
PubMed

[77] Schubeus P, Schorner W, Haustein J. Dosing of Gd-DTPA in MR imaging of intracranial tumors. Magn Reson Med 1991;22:249-254
PubMed

[78] Schwaighofer BW, Klein MV, Wesbey G, Hesselink JR. Clinical experience with routine Gd-DTPA administration for MR imaging of the brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:11-17
PubMed

[79] Seiderer M. Phase III clinical studies with gadoteridol for the evaluation of neurologic pathology: a European perspective. Invest Radiol 1992;27:533-538

[80] Sharif HS, Clark DC, Aabed MY, et al. Granulomatous spinal infections: MR imaging. Radiology 1990;177:101-107
PubMed

[81] Sherman JL, Stern BJ. Sarcoidosis of the CNS: comparison of unenhanced and enhanced MR images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:1293-1301
PubMed

[82] Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1029-1036
PubMed

[83] Stabler A, Bellan M, Weiss M, Grtner C, Brossman J, Reiser MF. MR imaging of enhancing intraosseous disk herniation (Schmorl's nodes). AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:933-938
PubMed

[84] Stack JP, Antoun NM, Jenkins JP, Metcalfe R, Isherwood J. Gadolinium-DTPA as a contrast agent in magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Neuroradiology 1988;30:145-154
CrossRef PubMed

[85] Stack JP, Ransden RT, Antoun NM, Lye RH, Isherwood J, Jenkins JP. Magnetic resonance imaging of acoustic neuromas: the role of gadolinium-DTPA. Br J Radiol 1988;61:800-805
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[86] Sze G, Krol G, Zimmerman RD, Deck MD. Intramedullary disease of the spine: diagnosis using gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:1193-1204
CrossRef PubMed

[87] Sze G, Soletsky S, Bronen R, Krol G. MR imaging of the cranial meninges with emphasis on contrast enhancement and meningeal carcinomatosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989;10:965-975
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[88] Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C, Heier L. Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:785-791
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[89] Sze G, Brant-Zawadzki M, Haughton VM, et al. Multicenter study of gadodiamide injection as a contrast agent in MR imaging of the brain and spine. Radiology 1991;181:693-699
PubMed

[90] Sze G, Brant-Zawadzki M, McNamara MT, et al. Use of the magnetic resonance contrast agent gadodiamide in the central nervous system: results of a multicenter trial. Invest Radiol 1993;28:S49-S55

[91] Tam JK, Bradley WG, Goergen SK, et al. Patterns of contrast enhancement in the pediatric spine at MR imaging with single- and triple-dose gadolinium. Radiology 1996;198:273-278
PubMed

[92] Tas MW, Barkhol F, van Walderveen MAA, Polman CH, Hommes OR, Valk J. The effect of gadolinium on the sensitivity and specificity of MR in the initial diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:259-264
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[93] Tuite M, Ketonen L, Kieburtz K, Handy B. Efficacy of gadolinium in MR brain imaging of HIV-infected patients. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1993;14:257-263
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[94] Tullberg T, Grane P, Isacson J. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of 36 patients one year after lumbar disc resection. Spine 1994;19:176-182
PubMed

[95] Tullberg T, Grane P, Rydberg J, Isacson J. Comparison of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging one year after lumbar discectomy. Spine 1994;19:183-188
PubMed

[96] Valk J, De SRG, Crezee FC, Hazenberg GJ, Thjaha SI. Gadolinium-DTPA in magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Neurosurg Rev 1987;10:87-92
PubMed

[97] Valk J, De SRG, Crezee FC, Hazenberg GJ, Thjaha SI, Nauta JJ. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the brain using gadolinium-DTPA. Acta Radiol 1987;28:659-665
PubMed

[98] Valk J, Algra PR, Hazenberg GJ, Slooff WB, Svaland MG. A double-blind, comparative study of gadodiamide injection and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of the central nervous system. Neuroradiology 1993;35:173-177
CrossRef PubMed

[99] Weingarten K, Ernst RJ, Jahre C, Zimmerman RD. Detection of residual or recurrent meningioma after surgery: value of enhanced vs. unenhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:645-650
PubMed

[100] Wiebe S, Lee DH, Karlik SJ, et al. Serial cranial and spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1992;32:643-650
CrossRef PubMed

[101] Yousem DM, Patrone PM, Grossman RI. Leptomeningeal metastases: MR evaluation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:255-261
PubMed

[102] Yuh WT, Crain MR, Loes DJ, Greene GM, Ryals TJ, Sato Y. MR imaging of cerebral ischemia: findings in the first 24 hours. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:621-629
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[103] Yuh WT, Fisher DJ, Engelken JD, et al. MR evaluation of CNS tumors: dose comparison study with gadopentetate dimeglumine and gadoteridol. Radiology 1991;180:485-491
PubMed

[104] Yuh WT, Engelken JD, Muhonen MG, Mayr NA, Fisher DJ, Ehrhardt JC. Experience with high-dose gadolinium MR imaging in the evaluation of brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13:335-345
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[105] Yuh WT. Delineation of gliomas with various doses of MR contrast material. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:983-989
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[106] Yuh WT. Phase III multicenter trial of high-dose gadoteridol in MR evaluation of brain metastases. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:1037-1051
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[107] Zee CS, Segall HD, Destian S, Ahmadi J, Apuzzo ML. MRI of intraventricular cysticercosis: surgical implications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:932-939
PubMed

[108] Zimmerman RA, Bilaniuk LT, Rebsamen S. Magnetic resonance imaging of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Neurosurg 1992;18:58-64
PubMed

Main menu

User menu

Search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

MR Contrast Media in Neuroimaging: A Critical Review of the Literature

Abstract