Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 5, 2025
Tumor Treating Field Therapy in Combination with Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma
Published on: October 27, 2014
Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhancement Parameters between Gadobutrol and Gadoterate Meglumine in Posttreatment
1From the Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology (J.E.P., H.S.K., W.H.S.), University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Background And Purpose:
Differences in molecular properties between one-molar and half-molar gadolinium-based contrast agents are thought to affect parameters obtained from dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. The aim of our study was to investigate differences in dynamic contrast-enhanced parameters between one-molar nonionic gadobutrol and half-molar ionic gadoterate meglumine in patients with posttreatment glioma.
Materials And Methods:
This prospective study enrolled 32 patients who underwent 2 20-minute dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations, one with gadobutrol and one with gadoterate meglumine. The model-free parameter of area under the signal intensity curve from 30 to 1100 seconds and the Tofts model-based pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and compared intraindividually using paired t tests. Patients were further divided into progression (n = 12) and stable (n = 20) groups, which were compared using Student t tests.
Results:
Gadobutrol and gadoterate meglumine did not show any significant differences in the area under the signal intensity curve or pharmacokinetic parameters of K trans, Ve, Vp, or Kep (all P > .05). Gadobutrol showed a significantly higher mean wash-in rate (0.83 ± 0.64 versus 0.29 ± 0.63, P = .013) and a significantly lower mean washout rate (0.001 ± 0.0001 versus 0.002 ± 0.002, P = .02) than gadoterate meglumine. Trends toward higher area under the curve, K trans, Ve, Vp, wash-in, and washout rates and lower Kep were observed in the progression group in comparison with the treatment-related-change group, regardless of the contrast agent used.
Conclusions:
Model-free and pharmacokinetic parameters did not show any significant differences between the 2 gadolinium-based contrast agents, except for a higher wash-in rate with gadobutrol and a higher washout rate with gadoterate meglumine, supporting the interchangeable use of gadolinium-based contrast agents for dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in patients with posttreatment glioma.
