The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) Versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) Relative to Gadolinium Retention in Human Bone Tissue by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the gadolinium (Gd) concentration remaining in human bone tissue after administration of standard clinical doses of 2 Gd-based contrast agents: ProHance and Omniscan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After administration of 0.1 mmol/kg of Gd chelate to patients undergoing hip replacement surgery, bone specimens were collected and analyzed, and compared with an age-matched control population without a history of Gd chelate administration. Bone specimens were collected fresh, refrigerated, and subsequently frozen. After grinding and freeze-drying, tissue digestion was performed using Teflon bombs and concentrated nitric acid. A method for analysis of Gd in bone specimens was developed and validated using inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). RESULTS: Results were compared with a previous study using a different technique for analysis of the same tissue specimens. Tissue retention was 1.77+/-0.704 microg Gd/g bone (n=9) for Omniscan and 0.477+/-0.271 microg Gd/g bone (n=10) for ProHance measured by ICP-MS. These findings confirmed results from the previous ICP-AES study. CONCLUSION: Omniscan (Gd[DTPA-BMA]) left approximately 4 times (previous study 2.5 times) more Gd behind in bone than did ProHance (Gd[HP-DO3A]).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging
McDonald, R. J., McDonald, J. S., Kallmes, D. F., Jentoft, M. E., Murray, D. L., Thielen, K. R., Williamson, E. E., & Eckel, L. J. (2015) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025 · Cited by 1,358
Kanda, T., Fukusato, T., Matsuda, M., Toyoda, K., Oba, H., Kotoku, J., Haruyama, T., Kitajima, K., & Furui, S. (2015) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690 · Cited by 874
Thomsen, H. S., Morcos, S. K., Almén, T., Bellin, M.-F., Bertolotto, M., Bongartz, G., Clement, O., Leander, P., Heinz-Peer, G., Reimer, P., et al. (2013) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9 · Cited by 441
Clinical Safety and Diagnostic Value of the Gadolinium Chelate Gadoterate Meglumine (Gd-DOTA)
Herborn, C. U., Honold, E., Wolf, M., Kemper, J., Kinner, S., Adam, G., & Barkhausen, J. (2007) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000248893.01067.e5 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- White, G. W., Gibby, W. A., & Tweedle, M. F.
- Venue
- Investigative Radiology
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 272-278
- ISSN
- 0020-9996 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2066801370
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) Versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) Relative to Gadolinium Retention in Human Bone Tissue by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.rli.0000186569.32408.95
- The paper
- White, G. W., Gibby, W. A., & Tweedle, M. F. (2006). Comparison of Gd(DTPA-BMA) (Omniscan) Versus Gd(HP-DO3A) (ProHance) Relative to Gadolinium Retention in Human Bone Tissue by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy. Investigative Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000186569.32408.95
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.