Retention of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis: Retrospective Analysis of an 18-Year Longitudinal Study

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Lohrke J,
   3. Frenzel T,
   4. Endrikat J, et al

   . 25 years of contrast-enhanced MRI: developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv Ther 2016;33:1–28 doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0275-4 pmid:26809251

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Idée JM,
   3. Fretellier N,
   4. Robic C, et al

   . The role of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a critical update. Crit Rev Toxicol 2014;44:895–913 doi:10.3109/10408444.2014.955568 pmid:25257840

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Frenzel T,
   3. Lengsfeld P,
   4. Schirmer H, et al

   . Stability of gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents in human serum at 37 degrees C. Invest Radiol 2008;43:817–28 doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181852171 pmid:19002053

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   2. Thomsen HS,
   3. Morcos SK,
   4. Almén T, et al

   ; ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2013;23:307–18 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9 pmid:22865271

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. White GW,
   3. Gibby WA,
   4. Tweedle MF

   . 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. Invest Radiol 2006;41:272–78 doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000186569.32408.95 pmid:16481910

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. Idée JM,
   3. Port M,
   4. Dencausse A, et al

   . Involvement of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an update. Radiol Clin North Am 2009;47:855–69, vii doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2009.06.006 pmid:19744600

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   2. Roberts DR,
   3. Lindhorst SM,
   4. Welsh CT, et al

   . High levels of gadolinium deposition in the skin of a patient with normal renal function. Invest Radiol 2016;51:280–89 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000266 pmid:26953564

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Kanda T,
   3. Ishii K,
   4. Kawaguchi H, et al

   . High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 2014;270:834–41 doi:10.1148/radiol.13131669 pmid:24475844

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Errante Y,
   3. Cirimele V,
   4. Mallio CA, et al

   . Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Invest Radiol 2014;49:685–90 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000072 pmid:24872007

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    2. McDonald RJ,
    3. McDonald JS,
    4. Kallmes DF, et al

    . Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015;275:772–82 doi:10.1148/radiol.15150025 pmid:25742194

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Quattrocchi CC,
    3. Mallio CA,
    4. Errante Y, et al

    . Gadodiamide and dentate nucleus T1 hyperintensity in patients with meningioma evaluated by multiple follow-up contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance examinations with no systemic interval therapy. Invest Radiol 2015;50:470–72 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000154 pmid:25756685

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Kanda T,
    3. Fukusato T,
    4. Matsuda M, et al

    . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015;276:228–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690 pmid:25942417

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Murata N,
    3. Gonzalez-Cuyar LF,
    4. Murata K, et al

    . Macrocyclic and other non-group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Invest Radiol 2016;51:447–53 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000252 pmid:26863577

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Robert P,
    3. Lehericy S,
    4. Grand S, et al

    . T1-weighted hypersignal in the deep cerebellar nuclei after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents in healthy rats: difference between linear and macrocyclic agents. Invest Radiol 2015;50:473–80 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000181 pmid:26107651

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Goischke HK

    . MRI with gadolinium-based contrast agents: practical help to ensure patient safety. J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:890 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2016.05.007 pmid:27325471

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Welk B,
    3. McArthur E,
    4. Morrow SA, et al

    . Association between gadolinium contrast exposure and the risk of parkinsonism. JAMA 2016;316:96–98 doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8096 pmid:27380348

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Poser CM,
    3. Paty DW,
    4. Scheinberg L, et al

    . New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol 1983;13:227–31 doi:10.1002/ana.410130302 pmid:6847134

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    2. Reuter M,
    3. Schmansky NJ,
    4. Rosas HD, et al

    . Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage 2012;61:1402–18 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.084 pmid:22430496

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    2. Schmidt P,
    3. Gaser C,
    4. Arsic M, et al

    . An automated tool for detection of FLAIR-hyperintense white-matter lesions in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage 2012;59:3774–83 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.032 pmid:22119648

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Kurtzke JF

    . Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33:1444–52 doi:10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444 pmid:6685237

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Lezak MD

    , ed. Neuropsychological Assessment. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012
22. 22.↵
    2. Benjamini Y,
    3. Krieger AM,
    4. Yekutieli D

    . Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika 2006;93:491–507 doi:10.1093/biomet/93.3.491

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Weberling LD,
    4. Kieslich PJ, et al

    . Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015;275:783–91 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150337 pmid:25848905

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Stojanov DA,
    3. Aracki-Trenkic A,
    4. Vojinovic S, et al

    . Increasing signal intensity within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1W magnetic resonance images in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: correlation with cumulative dose of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent, gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2016;26:807–15 doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3879-9 pmid:26105022

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Kanda T,
    3. Osawa M,
    4. Oba H, et al

    . High signal intensity in dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: association with linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelate administration. Radiology 2015;275:803–09 doi:10.1148/radiol.14140364 pmid:25633504

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Thomsen HS

    . T1 hyperintensity in the brain after multiple intravenous injections of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Acta Radiol 2016;57:389–91 doi:10.1177/0284185115626479 pmid:26792824

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Minagar A,
    3. Barnett MH,
    4. Benedict RH, et al

    . The thalamus and multiple sclerosis: modern views on pathologic, imaging, and clinical aspects. Neurology 2013;80:210–19 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31827b910b pmid:23296131

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Rocca MA,
    4. Barkhof F, et al

    ; Attendees of the Correlation between Pathological MRI Findings in MS Workshop. Association between pathological and MRI findings in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2012;11:349–60 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70003-0 pmid:22441196

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
29. 29.↵
    2. Roccatagliata L,
    3. Vuolo L,
    4. Bonzano L, et al

    . Multiple sclerosis: hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with the secondary progressive subtype. Radiology 2009;251:503–10 doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081269 pmid:19401576

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Ramalho J,
    3. Ramalho M,
    4. AlObaidy M, et al

    . T1 signal-intensity increase in the dentate nucleus after multiple exposures to gadodiamide: intraindividual comparison between 2 commonly used sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1427–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4757 pmid:27032972

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Ramalho J,
    3. Ramalho M,
    4. AlObaidy M, et al

    . Technical aspects of MRI signal change quantification after gadolinium-based contrast agents' administration. Magn Reson Imaging 2016;34:1355–58 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2016.09.004 pmid:27693606

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Rocca MA,
    3. Amato MP,
    4. Enzinger C, et al

    ; MAGNIMS Study Group. Clinical and imaging assessment of cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:302–17 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70250-9 pmid:25662900

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    2. Tröster AI,
    3. Woods SP,
    4. Fields JA

    . Verbal fluency declines after pallidotomy: an interaction between task and lesion laterality. Appl Neuropsychol 2003;10:69–75 doi:10.1207/S15324826AN1002_02 pmid:12788681

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Mariën P,
    3. Ackermann H,
    4. Adamaszek M, et al

    . Consensus paper: language and the cerebellum—an ongoing enigma. Cerebellum 2014;13:386–410 doi:10.1007/s12311-013-0540-5 pmid:24318484

    CrossRefPubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Sbardella E,
    3. Upadhyay N,
    4. Tona F, et al

    . Dentate nucleus connectivity in adult patients with multiple sclerosis: functional changes at rest and correlation with clinical features. Mult Scler 2017;23:546–55 doi:10.1177/1352458516657438 pmid:27411700

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Rocca MA,
    4. De Stefano N, et al

    . Magnetic resonance techniques in multiple sclerosis: the present and the future. Arch Neurol 2011;68:1514–20 doi:10.1001/archneurol.2011.914 pmid:22159052

    CrossRefPubMed
37. 37.↵
    2. Sandroff BM,
    3. Schwartz CE,
    4. DeLuca J

    . Measurement and maintenance of reserve in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2016;263:2158–69 doi:10.1007/s00415-016-8104-05 pmid:27072141

    CrossRefPubMed