Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging of the Pediatric Brain after Repeat Doses of Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agent

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Boehm I,
   3. Hungerbuhler M,
   4. Heverhagen JT

   . Insight into the dynamic of gadolinium based contrast agent (GBCA) hypersensitivity: acquisition, persistence and disappearance. Magn Reson Imaging 2018;49:1–3 doi:10.1016/j.mri.2017.12.013 pmid:29247752

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Khawaja AZ,
   3. Cassidy DB,
   4. Al Shakarchi J, et al

   . Revisiting the risks of MRI with gadolinium-based contrast agents: review of literature and guidelines. Insights Imaging 2015;6:553–58 doi:10.1007/s13244-015-0420-2 pmid:26253982

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Choi JW,
   3. Moon WJ

   . Gadolinium deposition in the brain: current updates. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:134–47 doi:10.3348/kjr.2018.0356 pmid:30627029

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Rossi Espagnet MC,
   3. Bernardi B,
   4. Pasquini L, et al

   . Signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance in the globus pallidus and dentate nucleus after serial administrations of a macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent in children. Pediatr Radiol 2017;47:1345–52 doi:10.1007/s00247-017-3874-1 pmid:28526896

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Tedeschi E,
   3. Palma G,
   4. Canna A, et al

   . In vivo dentate nucleus MRI relaxometry correlates with previous administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Eur Radiol 2016;26:4577–84 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4245-2 pmid:26905870

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   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
7. 7.↵
   2. Tamrazi B,
   3. Nguyen B,
   4. Liu CJ, et al

   . Changes in signal intensity of the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus in pediatric patients: impact of brain irradiation and presence of primary brain tumors independent of linear gadolinium-based contrast agent administration. Radiology 2018;287:452–60 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017171850 pmid:29189102

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Valdés Hernández M,
   3. Maconick LC,
   4. Tan EMJ, et al

   . Identification of mineral deposits in the brain on radiological images: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2371–81 doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2494-2 pmid:22688125

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Ginat DT,
   3. Meyers SP

   . Intracranial lesions with high signal intensity on T1-weighted MR images: differential diagnosis. Radiographics 2012;32:499–516 doi:10.1148/rg.322105761 pmid:22411945

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Young JR,
    3. Orosz I,
    4. Franke MA, et al

    . Gadolinium deposition in the paediatric brain: T1-weighted hyperintensity within the dentate nucleus following repeated gadolinium-based contrast agent administration. Clin Radiol 2018;73:290–95 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.005 pmid:29208312

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Haacke EM,
    3. Mittal S,
    4. Wu Z, et al

    . Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, Part 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:19–30 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1400 pmid:19039041

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    2. Nandigam RN,
    3. Viswanathan A,
    4. Delgado P, et al

    . MR imaging detection of cerebral microbleeds: effect of susceptibility-weighted imaging, section thickness, and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:338–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1355 pmid:19001544

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
13. 13.↵
    2. El-Koussy M,
    3. Schenk P,
    4. Kiefer C, et al

    . Susceptibility-weighted imaging of the brain: does gadolinium administration matter? Eur J Radiol 2012;81:272–27 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.021 pmid:21216124

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    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
15. 15.↵
    2. Ryu YJ,
    3. Choi YH,
    4. Cheon JE, et al

    . Pediatric brain: gadolinium deposition in dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images is dependent on the type of contrast agent. Invest Radiol 2018;53:246–55 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000436 pmid:29300210

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Moser FG,
    3. Watterson CT,
    4. Weiss S, et al

    . High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: comparison between gadobutrol and linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:421–26 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5538 pmid:29419400

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. McDonald RJ,
    3. McDonald JS,
    4. Kallmes DF, et al

    . Gadolinium deposition in human brain tissues after contrast-enhanced MR imaging in adult patients without intracranial abnormalities. Radiology 2017;285:546–54 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161595 pmid:28653860

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Ozturk K,
    3. Nas OF,
    4. Soylu E, et al

    . Signal changes in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance images after intrathecal administration of macrocyclic gadolinium contrast agent. Invest Radiol 2018;53:535–40 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000472 pmid:29727401

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Lanphear BP

    . The impact of toxins on the developing brain. Annu Rev Public Health 2015;36:211–30 doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031912-114413 pmid:25581143

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    2. Roberts DR,
    3. Chatterjee AR

    . The critical need for pediatric and juvenile animal research addressing gadolinium retention in the developing body. Invest Radiol 2019;54:72–75 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000516 pmid:30273280

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Runge VM

    . Dechelation (transmetalation): consequences and safety concerns with the linear gadolinium-based contrast agents, in view of recent health care rulings by the EMA (Europe), FDA (United States), and PMDA (Japan). Invest Radiol 2018;53:571–78 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000507 pmid:30130320

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Ichikawa S,
    3. Omiya Y,
    4. Onishi H, et al

    . Linear gadolinium-based contrast agent (gadodiamide and gadopentetate dimeglumine)-induced high signal intensity on unenhanced T1-weighted images in pediatric patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:1046–49 doi:10.1002/jmri.26311 pmid:30307671

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Tibussek D,
    3. Rademacher C,
    4. Caspers J, et al

    . Gadolinium brain deposition after macrocyclic gadolinium administration: a pediatric case-control study. Radiology 2017;285:223–30 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017161151 pmid:28640695

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Haase R,
    4. 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;283:828–36 doi:10.1148/radiol.2017162980 pmid:28273007

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Chai C,
    3. Yan S,
    4. Chu Z, et al

    . Quantitative measurement of brain iron deposition in patients with haemodialysis using susceptibility mapping. Metab Brain Dis 2015;30:563–71 doi:10.1007/s11011-014-9608-2 pmid:25182196

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Hinoda T,
    3. Fushimi Y,
    4. Okada T, et al

    . Quantitative assessment of gadolinium deposition in dentate nucleus using quantitative susceptibility mapping. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1352–58 doi:10.1002/jmri.25490 pmid:27664936

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    2. Radbruch A,
    3. Weberling LD,
    4. Kieslich PJ, et al

    . Intraindividual analysis of signal intensity changes in the dentate nucleus after consecutive serial applications of linear and macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2016;51:683–90 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000308 pmid:27495187

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    2. Schweser F,
    3. Sommer K,
    4. Deistung A, et al

    . Quantitative susceptibility mapping for investigating subtle susceptibility variations in the human brain. Neuroimage 2012;62:2083–2100 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.067 pmid:22659482

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Spincemaille P,
    4. Liu Z, et al

    . Clinical quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM): biometal imaging and its emerging roles in patient care. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:951–71 doi:10.1002/jmri.25693 pmid:28295954

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Haacke EM,
    3. Makki M,
    4. Ge Y, et al

    . Characterizing iron deposition in multiple sclerosis lesions using susceptibility weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;29:537–44 doi:10.1002/jmri.21676 pmid:19243035

    CrossRefPubMed
31. 31.↵
    2. Bilgic B,
    3. Pfefferbaum A,
    4. Rohlfing T, et al

    . MRI estimates of brain iron concentration in normal aging using quantitative susceptibility mapping. Neuroimage 2012;59:2625–35 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.077 pmid:21925274

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
32. 32.↵
    2. Harder SL,
    3. Hopp KM,
    4. Ward H, et al

    . Mineralization of the deep gray matter with age: a retrospective review with susceptibility-weighted MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:176–83 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0770 pmid:17989376

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    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