Advanced search

Vol 54, No 5 (2020)
Review Article
Published online: 2020-09-21

open access

View PDF Download PDF file
Page views 3631
Article views/downloads 2453
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Role of gadolinium-based contrast agents in neurological disorders

Weronika Golec1, Aleksandra Jakimów-Kostrzewa2, Bartosz Mruk3, Sergiusz Jóźwiak1
DOI: 10.5603/PJNNS.a2020.0070
Pubmed: 32955099
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2020;54(5):399-409.

Abstract

Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are widely used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to help with the diagnostic and monitoring processes of many diseases, including neurological disorders. Initially, it was assumed that GBCAs carry minimal risk, are safe and well tolerated. But recent reports of GBCA-associated deposition in many body tissues have raised concerns about the broader health impacts of gadolinium exposure. The aim of this review was to summarise knowledge regarding gadolinium deposition, primarily in the brain structures, and of potential GBCA-associated toxicity. Moreover, we discuss the current recommendations on the use of GBCAs, as well as alternative contrast agents and imaging techniques.

Keywords: gadolinium-based contrast agentsgadolinium depositionalternative contrast agentsalternative imaging techniques

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Almutairi A, Mahmud R, Suppiah S, et al. Accuracy of MRI Sequences in Detecting Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Lesions: A Systematic Review. Advances in Bioscience and Clinical Medicine. 2019; 7(2): 39.
    CrossRef
  2. Bhargava R, Hahn G, Hirsch W, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric patients: review and recommendations for current practice. Magn Reson Insights. 2013; 6: 95–111.
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J, et al. 25 Years of Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Developments, Current Challenges and Future Perspectives. Adv Ther. 2016; 33(1): 1–28.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Caravan P, Ellison JJ, McMurry TJ, et al. Gadolinium(III) Chelates as MRI Contrast Agents: Structure, Dynamics, and Applications. Chem Rev. 1999; 99(9): 2293–2352.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Lauffer R. Paramagnetic metal complexes as water proton relaxation agents for NMR imaging: theory and design. Chemical Reviews. 1987; 87(5): 901–927.
    CrossRef
  6. Essig M, Anzalone N, Combs SE, et al. MR imaging of neoplastic central nervous system lesions: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012; 33(5): 803–817.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: A comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 46(2): 338–353.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Runge VM. Safety of the Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Focusing in Part on Their Accumulation in the Brain and Especially the Dentate Nucleus. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51(5): 273–279.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Rogosnitzky M, Branch S. Gadolinium-based contrast agent toxicity: a review of known and proposed mechanisms. Biometals. 2016; 29(3): 365–376.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Kanal E, Maravilla K, Rowley HA. Gadolinium contrast agents for CNS imaging: current concepts and clinical evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(12): 2215–2226.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Bellin MF, Van Der Molen AJ. Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: an overview. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 66(2): 160–167.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Port M, Idée JM, Medina C, et al. Efficiency, thermodynamic and kinetic stability of marketed gadolinium chelates and their possible clinical consequences: a critical review. Biometals. 2008; 21(4): 469–490.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH, et al. Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.v. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(6): 1533–1538.
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. Ramalho M, Ramalho J. Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents: Associated Adverse Reactions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2017; 25(4): 755–764.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. ACR Manual On Contrast Media 2020 ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ; 2020.
  16. Nelson KL, Gifford LM, Lauber-Huber C, et al. Clinical safety of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 1995; 196(2): 439–443.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Behzadi AH, Zhao Y, Farooq Z, et al. Immediate Allergic Reactions to Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2018; 286(2): 471–482.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. ESUR Contrast Media Safety Guidelines. http://www.esur.org/esur-guidelines/ (10.2019).
  19. Tweedle MF, Wedeking P, Kumar K. Biodistribution of radiolabeled, formulated gadopentetate, gadoteridol, gadoterate, and gadodiamide in mice and rats. Invest Radiol. 1995; 30(6): 372–380.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Gibby WA, Gibby KA, Gibby WA. Comparison of Gd DTPA-BMA (Omniscan) versus Gd HP-DO3A (ProHance) retention in human bone tissue by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Invest Radiol. 2004; 39(3): 138–142.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. White GW, Gibby WA, 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(3): 272–278.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. Grobner T. Gadolinium--a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006; 21(4): 1104–1108.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Schieda N, Blaichman JI, Costa AF, et al. Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Kidney Disease: Comprehensive Review and Clinical Practice Guideline Issued by the Canadian Association of Radiologists. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018; 69(2): 136–150.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Kanda T, Ishii K, 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(3): 834–841.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Errante Y, Cirimele V, 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(10): 685–690.
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, AlObaidy M, et al. Signal intensity change on unenhanced T1-weighted images in dentate nucleus following gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with and without previous multiple administrations of gadodiamide. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(11): 4080–4088.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Roberts DR, Holden KR. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain Dev. 2016; 38(3): 331–336.
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. Flood TF, Stence NV, Maloney JA, et al. Pediatric Brain: Repeated Exposure to Linear Gadolinium-based Contrast Material Is Associated with Increased Signal Intensity at Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Imaging. Radiology. 2017; 282(1): 222–228.
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. Robert P, Violas X, Grand S, et al. Linear Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents Are Associated With Brain Gadolinium Retention in Healthy Rats. Invest Radiol. 2016; 51(2): 73–82.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Kanda T, Osawa M, 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(3): 803–809.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology. 2015; 275(3): 783–791.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Radbruch A, Haase R, Kickingereder P, et al. Pediatric Brain: No Increased Signal Intensity in the Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Images after Consecutive Exposure to a Macrocyclic Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent. Radiology. 2017; 283(3): 828–836.
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Pozeg P, Forget J, Meuli RA, et al. Age, But Not Repeated Exposure to Gadoterate Meglumine, Is Associated With T1- and T2-Weighted Signal Intensity Changes in the Deep Brain Nuclei of Pediatric Patients. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(9): 537–548.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. Agris J, Pietsch H, Balzer T. What Evidence Is There That Gadobutrol Causes Increasing Signal Intensity within the Dentate Nucleus and Globus Pallidus on Unenhanced T1W MRI in Patients with RRMS? Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(3): 816–817.
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. Bjørnerud A, Vatnehol SA, Larsson C, et al. Signal Enhancement of the Dentate Nucleus at Unenhanced MR Imaging after Very High Cumulative Doses of the Macrocyclic Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent Gadobutrol: An Observational Study. Radiology. 2017; 285(2): 434–444.
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. Kanda T, Nakai Y, Aoki S, et al. Contribution of metals to brain MR signal intensity: review articles. Jpn J Radiol. 2016; 34(4): 258–266.
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. Kasahara S, Miki Y, Kanagaki M, et al. Hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with a history of brain irradiation. Radiology. 2011; 258(1): 222–228.
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. Lohrke J, Frisk AL, Frenzel T, et al. Histology and Gadolinium Distribution in the Rodent Brain After the Administration of Cumulative High Doses of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. Invest Radiol. 2017; 52(6): 324–333.
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Dai D, et al. Comparison of Gadolinium Concentrations within Multiple Rat Organs after Intravenous Administration of Linear versus Macrocyclic Gadolinium Chelates. Radiology. 2017; 285(2): 536–545.
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. Gianolio E, Bardini P, Arena F, et al. Gadolinium Retention in the Rat Brain: Assessment of the Amounts of Insoluble Gadolinium-containing Species and Intact Gadolinium Complexes after Repeated Administration of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents. Radiology. 2017; 285(3): 839–849.
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. Minaeva O, Hua N, Franz ES, et al. Nonhomogeneous Gadolinium Retention in the Cerebral Cortex after Intravenous Administration of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent in Rats and Humans. Radiology. 2020; 294(2): 377–385.
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. Strzeminska I, Factor C, Robert P, et al. Long-Term Evaluation of Gadolinium Retention in Rat Brain After Single Injection of a Clinically Relevant Dose of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(3): 138–143.
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. Weinmann HJ, Brasch RC, Press WR, et al. Characteristics of gadolinium-DTPA complex: a potential NMR contrast agent. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984; 142(3): 619–624.
    CrossRefPubMed
  44. Jost G, Frenzel T, Lohrke J, et al. Penetration and distribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents into the cerebrospinal fluid in healthy rats: a potential pathway of entry into the brain tissue. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(7): 2877–2885.
    CrossRefPubMed
  45. Berger F, Kubik-Huch RA, Niemann T, et al. Gadolinium Distribution in Cerebrospinal Fluid after Administration of a Gadolinium-based MR Contrast Agent in Humans. Radiology. 2018; 288(3): 703–709.
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, et al. Impact of brain tumors and radiotherapy on the presence of gadolinium in the brain after repeated administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents: an experimental study in rats. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(11): 1273–1280.
    CrossRefPubMed
  47. Smith APL, Marino M, Roberts J, et al. Clearance of Gadolinium from the Brain with No Pathologic Effect after Repeated Administration of Gadodiamide in Healthy Rats: An Analytical and Histologic Study. Radiology. 2017; 282(3): 743–751.
    CrossRefPubMed
  48. Jost G, Frenzel T, Boyken J, et al. Long-term Excretion of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents: Linear versus Macrocyclic Agents in an Experimental Rat Model. Radiology. 2019; 290(2): 340–348.
    CrossRefPubMed
  49. Robert P, Fingerhut S, Factor C, et al. One-year Retention of Gadolinium in the Brain: Comparison of Gadodiamide and Gadoterate Meglumine in a Rodent Model. Radiology. 2018; 288(2): 424–433.
    CrossRefPubMed
  50. Welk B, McArthur E, Morrow SA, et al. Association Between Gadolinium Contrast Exposure and the Risk of Parkinsonism. JAMA. 2016; 316(1): 96–98.
    CrossRefPubMed
  51. Perrotta G, Metens T, Absil J, et al. Absence of clinical cerebellar syndrome after serial injections of more than 20 doses of gadoterate, a macrocyclic GBCA: a monocenter retrospective study. J Neurol. 2017; 264(11): 2277–2283.
    CrossRefPubMed
  52. Zivadinov R, Bergsland N, Hagemeier J, et al. Cumulative gadodiamide administration leads to brain gadolinium deposition in early MS. Neurology. 2019; 93(6): e611–e623.
    CrossRefPubMed
  53. Cocozza S, Pontillo G, Lanzillo R, et al. MRI features suggestive of gadolinium retention do not correlate with Expanded Disability Status Scale worsening in Multiple Sclerosis. Neuroradiology. 2019; 61(2): 155–162.
    CrossRefPubMed
  54. Forslin Y, Shams S, Hashim F, et al. Retention of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis: Retrospective Analysis of an 18-Year Longitudinal Study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(7): 1311–1316.
    CrossRefPubMed
  55. Forslin Y, Martola J, Bergendal Å, et al. Gadolinium Retention in the Brain: An MRI Relaxometry Study of Linear and Macrocyclic Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1265–1273.
    CrossRefPubMed
  56. Bower DV, Richter JK, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al. Gadolinium-Based MRI Contrast Agents Induce Mitochondrial Toxicity and Cell Death in Human Neurons, and Toxicity Increases With Reduced Kinetic Stability of the Agent. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(8): 453–463.
    CrossRefPubMed
  57. El Hamrani D, Vives V, Buchholz R, et al. Effect of Long-Term Retention of Gadolinium on Metabolism of Deep Cerebellar Nuclei After Repeated Injections of Gadodiamide in Rats. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(2): 120–128.
    CrossRefPubMed
  58. Weng TI, Chen HJ, Lu CW, et al. Exposure of Macrophages to Low-Dose Gadolinium-Based Contrast Medium: Impact on Oxidative Stress and Cytokines Production. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018; 2018: 3535769.
    CrossRefPubMed
  59. Wang S, Hesse B, Roman M, et al. Increased Retention of Gadolinium in the Inflamed Brain After Repeated Administration of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Mice Combining ICP-MS and Micro- and Nano-SR-XRF. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(10): 617–626.
    CrossRefPubMed
  60. Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, et al. International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2017; 16(7): 564–570.
    CrossRefPubMed
  61. Falk Delgado A, Van Westen D, Nilsson M, et al. Diagnostic value of alternative techniques to gadolinium-based contrast agents in MR neuroimaging-a comprehensive overview. Insights Imaging. 2019; 10(1): 84.
    CrossRefPubMed
  62. Haller S, Zaharchuk G, Thomas DL, et al. Arterial Spin Labeling Perfusion of the Brain: Emerging Clinical Applications. Radiology. 2016; 281(2): 337–356.
    CrossRefPubMed
  63. Detre JA, Alsop DC, Vives LR, et al. Noninvasive MRI evaluation of cerebral blood flow in cerebrovascular disease. Neurology. 1998; 50(3): 633–641.
    CrossRefPubMed
  64. Blauwblomme T, Naggara O, Brunelle F, et al. Arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging: toward noninvasive diagnosis and follow-up of pediatric brain arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015; 15(4): 451–458.
    CrossRefPubMed
  65. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986; 161(2): 401–407.
    CrossRefPubMed
  66. Kim DY, Kim HS, Goh MJ, et al. Utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for distinguishing recurrent metastatic tumor from treatment effect following gamma knife radiosurgery: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(11): 2082–2090.
    CrossRefPubMed
  67. Federau C, Meuli R, O'Brien K, et al. Perfusion measurement in brain gliomas with intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35(2): 256–262.
    CrossRefPubMed
  68. Suh CH, Kim HoS, Lee SS, et al. Atypical imaging features of primary central nervous system lymphoma that mimics glioblastoma: utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology. 2014; 272(2): 504–513.
    CrossRefPubMed
  69. Federau C, Sumer S, Becce F, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion imaging in acute stroke: initial clinical experience. Neuroradiology. 2014; 56(8): 629–635.
    CrossRefPubMed
  70. Nishimura DG, Macovski A, Pauly JM, et al. MR angiography by selective inversion recovery. Magn Reson Med. 1987; 4(2): 193–202.
    CrossRefPubMed
  71. Dhundass S, Savatovsky J, Duron L, et al. Improved detection and characterization of arterial occlusion in acute ischemic stroke using contrast enhanced MRA. J Neuroradiol. 2020; 47(4): 278–283.
    CrossRefPubMed
  72. Kemmling A, Noelte I, Gerigk L, et al. A diagnostic pitfall for intracranial aneurysms in time-of-flight MR angiography: small intracranial lipomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(1): W62–W67.
    CrossRefPubMed
  73. Saito Y. 8 Current Status of Magnetic Resonance Angiography. vol. ; 7: 2018.
  74. Wymer DT, Patel KP, Burke WF, et al. Phase-Contrast MRI: Physics, Techniques, and Clinical Applications. Radiographics. 2020; 40(1): 122–140.
    CrossRefPubMed
  75. Christensen S, Amukotuwa S, Lansberg MG, et al. Comparison of Tmax values between full- and half-dose gadolinium perfusion studies. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 [Epub ahead of print]: 271678X20914537.
    CrossRefPubMed
  76. Roberts T, Rowley H. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in stroke. European Journal of Radiology. 2003; 45(3): 185–194.
    CrossRef
  77. Yamashita K, Hiwatashi A, Togao O, et al. Diagnostic utility of intravoxel incoherent motion mr imaging in differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016; 44(5): 1256–1261.
    CrossRefPubMed
  78. Gupta A, Al-Dasuqi K, Xia F, et al. The Use of Noncontrast Quantitative MRI to Detect Gadolinium-Enhancing Multiple Sclerosis Brain Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(7): 1317–1322.
    CrossRefPubMed
  79. Unal S, Peker E, Erdogan S, et al. Is It Possible to Discriminate Active MS Lesions with Diffusion Weighted Imaging? Eurasian J Med. 2019; 51(3): 219–223.
    CrossRefPubMed
  80. Arashloo FT, Hanzaei FF, Sedighi B, et al. Efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging in symptomatic and asymptomatic multiple sclerotic plaques. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019; 8(7): 2409–2413.
    CrossRefPubMed
  81. Wuerfel J, Paul F, Beierbach B, et al. MR-elastography reveals degradation of tissue integrity in multiple sclerosis. Neuroimage. 2010; 49(3): 2520–2525.
    CrossRefPubMed
  82. Riek K, Millward JM, Hamann I, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography reveals altered brain viscoelasticity in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Neuroimage Clin. 2012; 1(1): 81–90.
    CrossRefPubMed
  83. Bigot M, Chauveau F, Beuf O, et al. Magnetic Resonance Elastography of Rodent Brain. Front Neurol. 2018; 9: 1010.
    CrossRefPubMed
  84. Burtscher IM, Holtås S. Proton MR spectroscopy in clinical routine. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13(4): 560–567.
    CrossRefPubMed
  85. Cianfoni A, Law M, Re TJ, et al. Clinical pitfalls related to short and long echo times in cerebral MR spectroscopy. Journal of Neuroradiology. 2011; 38(2): 69–75.
    CrossRef
  86. Liu S, Buch S, Chen Y, et al. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: current status and future directions. NMR in Biomedicine. 2016; 30(4): e3552.
    CrossRef
  87. Zhou J, Payen JF, Wilson DA, et al. Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med. 2003; 9(8): 1085–1090.
    CrossRefPubMed
  88. Ward KM, Aletras AH, Balaban RS. A new class of contrast agents for MRI based on proton chemical exchange dependent saturation transfer (CEST). J Magn Reson. 2000; 143(1): 79–87.
    CrossRefPubMed
  89. Kamimura K, Nakajo M, Yoneyama T, et al. Amide proton transfer imaging of tumors: theory, clinical applications, pitfalls, and future directions. Jpn J Radiol. 2019; 37(2): 109–116.
    CrossRefPubMed
  90. Gong E, Pauly JM, Wintermark M, et al. Deep learning enables reduced gadolinium dose for contrast-enhanced brain MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018; 48(2): 330–340.
    CrossRefPubMed
  91. Bendszus M, Roberts D, Kolumban B, et al. Dose Finding Study of Gadopiclenol, a New Macrocyclic Contrast Agent, in MRI of Central Nervous System. Invest Radiol. 2020; 55(3): 129–137.
    CrossRefPubMed
  92. Rodríguez-Galván A, Rivera M, García-López P, et al. Gadolinium-containing carbon nanomaterials for magnetic resonance imaging: Trends and challenges. J Cell Mol Med. 2020; 24(7): 3779–3794.
    CrossRefPubMed
  93. Erstad DJ, Ramsay IA, Jordan VC, et al. Tumor Contrast Enhancement and Whole-Body Elimination of the Manganese-Based Magnetic Resonance Imaging Contrast Agent Mn-PyC3A. Invest Radiol. 2019; 54(11): 697–703.
    CrossRefPubMed
  94. European Medicines Agency. EMA/486286/2012 2012. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/public-statement/public-statement-teslascan-withdrawal-marketing-authorisation-european-union_en.pdf.
  95. Sudarshana DM, Nair G, Dwyer JT, et al. Manganese-Enhanced MRI of the Brain in Healthy Volunteers. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019; 40(8): 1309–1316.
    CrossRefPubMed
  96. Bales BC, Grimmond B, Johnson BF, et al. Fe-HBED Analogs: A Promising Class of Iron-Chelate Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2019; 2019: 8356931.
    CrossRefPubMed
  97. Dadfar SM, Roemhild K, Drude NI, et al. Iron oxide nanoparticles: Diagnostic, therapeutic and theranostic applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2019; 138: 302–325.
    CrossRefPubMed
  98. Lee H, Shahrivarkevishahi A, Lumata JL, et al. Supramolecular and biomacromolecular enhancement of metal-free magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Chem Sci. 2020; 11(8): 2045–2050.
    CrossRefPubMed
  99. EMA’s final opinion confirms restrictions on use of linear gadolinium agents in body scans | European Medicines Agency 2017. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emas-final-opinion-confirms-restrictions-use-linear-gadolinium-agents-body-scans.
  100. Wu S, Zhang H, Wang J, et al. Iron Sucrose as MRI Contrast Agent in Ischemic Stroke Model. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 52(3): 836–849.
    CrossRefPubMed

About cookies

Necessary cookies

Allways active

These cookies are necessary for the proper display and operation of the website. Blocking them may cause the website to malfunction.

Analytical cookies

As part of our website, we use analytical tools, such as Google Analytics, that allow us to verify website traffic. These tools may require the use of cookies.

Community cookies

These are cookies associated with the social networks we use. Accepting them will allow us to associate your visit to the site with our social media profiles.

Marketing cookies

These are cookies responsible for carrying out advertising and marketing activities - consenting to their use will allow us to target you with advertisements based on your previous activities within our website.

Copyright © 2023-2024 Via Medica Regulations Cookie policy Privacy Statement Legal Note