Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for Breast MR Imaging (DETECT Trial)

Laura Martincich, Matthieu Faivre-Pierret, Christian M. Zechmann, Stefano Corcione, Harrie C M Van Den Bosch, Wei Jun Peng, Antonella Petrillo, Katja C. Siegmann, Johannes T. Heverhagen, Pietro Panizza, Hans Björn Gehl, Felix Diekmann, Federica Pediconi, Lin Ma, Fiona J. Gilbert, Francesco Sardanelli, Paolo Belli, Marco Salvatore, Karl Friedrich Kreitner, Claudia M. WeissChiara Zuiani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. Results: Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. Conclusion: Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)396-408
Number of pages13
JournalRadiology
Volume258
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2011

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Intraindividual Crossover Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for Breast MR Imaging (DETECT Trial)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this