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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zech et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: