Cargando…

Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and safety of gadoxetate disodium vs gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with known or suspected focal liver lesions. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, inter-individual Phase III study. The pri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zech, Christoph J, Schwenke, Carsten, Endrikat, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30799932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178623X19827976
_version_ 1783396176620421120
author Zech, Christoph J
Schwenke, Carsten
Endrikat, Jan
author_facet Zech, Christoph J
Schwenke, Carsten
Endrikat, Jan
author_sort Zech, Christoph J
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and safety of gadoxetate disodium vs gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with known or suspected focal liver lesions. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, inter-individual Phase III study. The primary target—technical efficacy—was already published. Here, secondary efficacy parameters—sensitivity and specificity—and safety in specific patient populations are presented. Patients with suspected or known focal liver lesions scheduled for contrast-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were recruited and categorized in 4 a priori specified subgroups: (1) all patients, (2) patients with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]), (3) patients with cirrhosis, and (4) patients with HCC + cirrhosis. Dual multi-detector liver computed tomography (CT) served as standard of reference. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included. While the overall increase in sensitivity across all 4 patient groups was comparable for gadoxetate disodium (increase from pre- to post-contrast ranging from 6.2% to 9.9%) and gadobenate dimeglumine (ranging from −2.9% to 10.0%), significant differences were seen for some of the subgroups. There was a significantly higher increase in sensitivity for gadoxetate disodium in patients with HCC (7%) and HCC + cirrhosis (12.8%) in comparison with gadobenate dimeglumine. Specificity decreased for both agents: gadoxetate disodium by −2.8% to −6.3% and gadobenate dimeglumine by −3.3% to −8.7%. Gadoxetate showed a significantly lower loss of specificity in all subgroups. Safety was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetate disodium proved to be an effective liver-specific MRI contrast agent. Some distinct advantages over gadobenate dimeglumine were demonstrated in patients with HCC and patients with HCC + liver cirrhosis for sensitivity and specificity in liver lesion detection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6379790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63797902019-02-22 Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study Zech, Christoph J Schwenke, Carsten Endrikat, Jan Magn Reson Insights Original Research PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and safety of gadoxetate disodium vs gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with known or suspected focal liver lesions. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, inter-individual Phase III study. The primary target—technical efficacy—was already published. Here, secondary efficacy parameters—sensitivity and specificity—and safety in specific patient populations are presented. Patients with suspected or known focal liver lesions scheduled for contrast-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were recruited and categorized in 4 a priori specified subgroups: (1) all patients, (2) patients with liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]), (3) patients with cirrhosis, and (4) patients with HCC + cirrhosis. Dual multi-detector liver computed tomography (CT) served as standard of reference. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included. While the overall increase in sensitivity across all 4 patient groups was comparable for gadoxetate disodium (increase from pre- to post-contrast ranging from 6.2% to 9.9%) and gadobenate dimeglumine (ranging from −2.9% to 10.0%), significant differences were seen for some of the subgroups. There was a significantly higher increase in sensitivity for gadoxetate disodium in patients with HCC (7%) and HCC + cirrhosis (12.8%) in comparison with gadobenate dimeglumine. Specificity decreased for both agents: gadoxetate disodium by −2.8% to −6.3% and gadobenate dimeglumine by −3.3% to −8.7%. Gadoxetate showed a significantly lower loss of specificity in all subgroups. Safety was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetate disodium proved to be an effective liver-specific MRI contrast agent. Some distinct advantages over gadobenate dimeglumine were demonstrated in patients with HCC and patients with HCC + liver cirrhosis for sensitivity and specificity in liver lesion detection. SAGE Publications 2019-02-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6379790/ /pubmed/30799932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178623X19827976 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Zech, Christoph J
Schwenke, Carsten
Endrikat, Jan
Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title_full Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title_fullStr Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title_short Diagnostic Efficacy and Safety of Gadoxetate Disodium vs Gadobenate Dimeglumine in Patients With Known or Suspected Focal Liver Lesions: Results of a Clinical Phase III Study
title_sort diagnostic efficacy and safety of gadoxetate disodium vs gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with known or suspected focal liver lesions: results of a clinical phase iii study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30799932
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1178623X19827976
work_keys_str_mv AT zechchristophj diagnosticefficacyandsafetyofgadoxetatedisodiumvsgadobenatedimeglumineinpatientswithknownorsuspectedfocalliverlesionsresultsofaclinicalphaseiiistudy
AT schwenkecarsten diagnosticefficacyandsafetyofgadoxetatedisodiumvsgadobenatedimeglumineinpatientswithknownorsuspectedfocalliverlesionsresultsofaclinicalphaseiiistudy
AT endrikatjan diagnosticefficacyandsafetyofgadoxetatedisodiumvsgadobenatedimeglumineinpatientswithknownorsuspectedfocalliverlesionsresultsofaclinicalphaseiiistudy