Cited by 51Brain Metastases and TreatmentAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

MRI evaluation of “solitary” brain metastases with triple-dose gadoteridol: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and conventional-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine MRI studies in the same patients

Kuhn, Matthew J, Hammer, Glenn M, Swenson, Linda C, Youssef, Hisham T, Gleason, Theodore J·1994·Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the sensitivity and safety of high dose gadoteridol (Pro Hance) with routine dose gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist) in the detection of intracranial metastases on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when a solitary intracranial lesion was detected on contrast-enhanced cranial computed tomography (CT). Four patients, each with a solitary intracranial metastasis demonstrated on contrast-enhanced CT were studied prospectively with both 0.3 mmol/kg gadoteridol and 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were acquired before and immediately following contrast administration. Both of the MR studies were performed between two and six days of each other and within 1 wk of the cranial CT. Scan parameters and injection rates were identical on both occasions. Patient monitoring for the gadoteridol study included physical examination, vital signs and laboratory tests at several pre-determined times. Eighteen total metastases were demonstrated on MRI compared to the four on CT. Seven were visualized on the unenhanced MR images, nine on the scans using gadopentetate dimeglumine, and all eighteen on the scans using gadoteridol. Additional lesions were seen on the gadoteridol images in all four patients. No adverse events attributable to contrast media occurred. No significant changes in vital signs or laboratory values occurred.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0895-6111(94)90011-6

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuhn, M. J., Hammer, G. M., Swenson, L. C., Youssef, H. T., & Gleason, T. J.
Affiliations
SIU Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Kuhn, Matthew J
Venue
Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
391-399
ISSN
  • 0730-4862 (ISSN-L)
  • 0895-6111
OpenAlex
W2062117082
Cited by
51
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Brain Metastases and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
brain metastases, gadoteridol, Gd-DTPA, contrast-enhanced MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, contrast media safety
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Adult, Aged, Brain Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Contrast Media, Drug Combinations, Pentetic Acid, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gadolinium, Heterocyclic Compounds, Humans, Image Enhancement, Injections, Intravenous, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Meglumine, Middle Aged, Organometallic Compounds, Prospective Studies, Radiographic Image Enhancement, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Gadolinium DTPA

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review