Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for Breast MRI Screening: a Meta-analysis

  • Yang, Xiao-Ping (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Han, Yue-Dong (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Ye, Jian-Jun (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Chen, Gang (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Luo, Ying (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Ma, Hong-Xia (Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Lanzhou Command PLA) ;
  • Yu, Xue-Wen (Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Lanzhou Command PLA) ;
  • Niu, Juan-Qin (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Ren, Fang-Yuan (Department of Radiology, the First Hospital of Medical College of Xi'an Jiaotong University) ;
  • Guo, You-Ming (Department of Radiology, General Hospital of Lanzhou Command PLA)
  • Published : 2014.06.30


Background: As a common and essential contrast medium at present, gadobenate dimeglumine has shown better performance than some other agents when applied to Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening (Breast MRI Screening). Nevertheless, reports on the diagnostic performance of these two mediums (gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine) are not completely consistent. Objective: To assess the diagnostic value of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MRI Screening in patients suffering from breast cancer and to provide more convinced evidence to guide clinical practice in terms of appropriate contrast agents. Data Sources and Review Methods: Original articles in English and Chinese published before January 2013 were selected from available databases (The Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, Chinese Journal Full-text). The criteria for inclusion and exclusion were based on the standard for diagnosis tests. Meta-Disc software (Version 1.4) was used for data analysis. Then, the area under curve (AUC) of SROC and the spearman rank correlation of sensitivity against (1-specificity) were calculated. Results: Total of 17 researches involving 1934 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine were 0.99 (0.97, 1.00) and 0.93 (0.88, 1.00) respectively. The pooled specificity for these two contrast agents were 0.924 (0.902, 0.943) and 0.838 (0.817, 0.858) respectively, and the AUC of SROC curve were 0.9781 and 0.9215 respectively. Conclusions: Gadobenate dimeglumine can be regarded as a more effective and feasible contrast medium for Breast MRI Screening. At least 5% differences in diagnostic performance are usually considered as clinically relevant.


  1. Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H, et al (2010). Identification of residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: diffusion-weighted imaging-comparison with contrast-enhanced MR imaging and pathologic findings1. Radiology, 254, 357-66.
  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012). Cancer statistics, 2012. CA: a Cancer J Clin, 62, 10-29.
  3. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, et al (1995). Suspect Breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated. Radiology, 197, 387-95.
  4. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, et al (2006). Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 9.
  5. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al (2006). Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol, 6, 31.
  6. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S, et al (2008). Contrastenhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. Am J Roentgenol, 191, 1339-46.
  7. Luciani M, Pediconi F, Telesca M, et al (2011). Incidental enhancing lesions found on preoperative breast MRI: management and role of second-look ultrasound. La Radiologia Medica, 116, 886-904.
  8. Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann C M, et al (2011). Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial). Radiology, 258, 396-408.
  9. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al (2005). breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine1. Radiology, 237, 45-56.
  10. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Roselli A, et al (2007). Contrastenhanced MR Mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions1. Radiology, 243, 670-80.
  11. Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A, et al (2005). Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity1. Radiology, 235, 791-7.
  12. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al (2007). American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 57, 75-89.
  13. Semelka RC, Hernandes MdA, Stallings CG, Castillo M (2012). Objective evaluation of acute adverse events and image quality of gadolinium-based contrast agents (gadobutrol and gadobenate dimeglumine) by blinded evaluation. Pilot study. Magn Reson Imag, 31, 96-101.
  14. Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F, et al (2003). Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Am J Roentgenol, 181, 663-76.
  15. Helbich TH, Becherer A, Trattnig S, et al (1997). Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Radiology, 202, 421-9.
  16. Kawashima H, Tawara M, Suzuki M, et al (2001). Effectiveness of dynamic MRI for diagnosing pericicatricial minimal residual breast cancer following excisional biopsy. Eur J Radiol, 40, 2-9.
  17. Kneeshaw P, Lowry M, Manton D, et al (2006). Differentiation of benign from malignant breast disease associated with screening detected microcalcifications using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. The Breast, 15, 29-38.
  18. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al (2004). Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. New Engl J Med, 351, 427-37.
  19. Kuhl CK (2007). Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part 2. Clinical Applications1. Radiology, 244, 672-91.
  20. Alamo L, Fischer U (2001). Contrast-enhanced color doppler ultrasound characteristics in hypervascular breast tumors: comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol, 11, 970-7.
  21. Boetes C, Veltman J, van Die L, et al (2004). The role of MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Tr, 86, 31-7.
  22. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al (2005). Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer, 103, 1898-905.
  23. Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, et al (2003). Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol, 13, 1635-44.
  24. Fenlon HM, Phelan NC, O'Sullivan P, et al (1997). Benign versus malignant breast disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR imaging and Tc-99m tetrofosmin scintimammography. Radiology, 205, 214-20.
  25. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999). Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced mr imaging on the therapeutic approach1. Radiology, 213, 881-8.
  26. Fobben ES, Rubin CZ, Kalisher L, et al (1995). Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologicpathologic correlation. Radiology, 196, 143-52.