Breast MRI pp 113-134 | Cite as

Contrast Agents in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging


This chapter begins the breast-specific section of this book. The discussion of contrast agents is placed at the beginning of the breast section, as the imaging requirements for breast MRI are dictated by the spatial and temporal requirements of detecting and evaluating breast lesions enhanced by contrast media.


Contrast Agent Invasive Breast Cancer Breast Magnetic Resonance Image Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis Gadobenate Dimeglumine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ross RJ, Thompson JS, Kim K, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and evaluation of human breast tissue: preliminary clinical trials. Radiology 1982; 143: 195–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El Yousef SJ, Alfidi RJ, Duchesnau RH, et al. Initial experience with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of the human breast, J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1983; 7: 215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McSweeney MB, Small WC, Cerny V, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast disease: use of transverse relaxation times. Radiology 1984; 153: 741–744.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiener JI, Chako AC, Merten CW, et al. Breast and axillary tissue MR imaging: correlations of signal intensities and relaxation times with pathologic findings, Radiology 1986; 160: 299–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merchant TE, Thelissen GRP, de Graaf PW, et al. Application of a mixed imaging sequence for MR imaging characterization of human breast disease. Acta Radiol 1993; 34: 356–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmid H, et al. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1986; 10: 199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The labeling information of each FDA-approved Gd-based contrast agent was consulted for the data in this section: Magnevist, Document NDA 19–596/S-033, available at:, last accessed: 5–17-07, Berlex Imaging, 2004; Prohance, Document F1/3.5281.96, Bracco Diagnostics, Revised April 2006, available at:, last accessed 6–17-07. Multihance, Document F1/3.5410.37, Bracco Diagnostics, revised January 2005, available at:–2E3D–4C88–81A7–C8C5B875DD28/0/MULTIHANCEPIJan2005.pdf, last accessed on 6–17-07; Optimark, Document NDA 20–937/20–975/20–976/S-009 Mallinckrodt Inc, Revised January 2003, available at:,020975,020976s009lbl.pdf, last accessed on 6–17-07; Omniscan, ONC-2P-OSLO, GE Healthcare, October 2005, revised March 2007, available at:, last accessed on 6–17-07.
  8. 8.
    Hendrick RE, Haacke EM. Basic physics of MR contrast agents and maximization of image contrast. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 1993; 3: 137–148.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM, et al. Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins: a new class of high-efficiency general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest. Radiol. 1997; 32: 780–796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirchin MA, Pirovano G, Spinazzi A. Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA): an overview. Invest. Radiol. 1998; 33: 798–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spinazzi A, Lorusso V, Pirovano G, et al. Safety, tolerance, biodistribution and MR imaging enhancement of the liver with gadobenate dimeglumine. Acad. Radiol. 1999; 6: 282–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine – enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR 2003; 181: 663–676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al. Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: Gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate digeglumine. Radiology 2005; 237: 45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Runge VM, Armstrong MR, Barr RG, et al. A clinical comparison of the safety and efficacy of MultiHance (gadobenate dimeglumine) and Omniscan (gadodiamide) in magnetic resonance imaging in patients with central nervous system pathology. Invest Radiol 2001;36:65–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumours. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 1999; 10: 260–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weind KL, Maier CF, Rutt BK, et al. Invasive carcinomas and fibroadenomas of the breast: comparison of microvessel distributions – implications for imaging modalities. Radiology 1998; 208: 477–483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shellock FG, Kanal E. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 19: 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Remy-Jardin M, Dequiedt P, Ertzbischoff O, et al. Safety and effectiveness of gadolinium-enhanced multi-detector row spiral CT angiography of the chest: preliminary results in 37 patients with contraindications to iodinated contrast agents. Radiology 2005; 235: 819–826.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Becker J, Thompson H. Renal safety of gadolinium-based contrast agent for ionizing radiation imaging (Letter to the editor). Radiology 2006; 240: 301–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuo PH, Kanal E, Abu-Alfa AK, Cowper SE. Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology 2007; 242: 647–649.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. FDA Public Health Advisory: Information for Healthcare Professionals: Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Published on-line May 23, 2007 at: or Last accessed on June 17, 2007.
  22. 22.
    Broome DR, Girguis MS, Baron PW, et al. Gadodiamide-associated Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. Am. J. Roentgenol., 2007; 188: 586–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 427–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8469–8476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels KC. MARIBS study. Lancet. 2005; 366: 291–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 1095–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004; 292: 1317–1325.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR 2003; 181: 619–626.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Haustein J, Pohl C. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of two different doses of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 1994; 191, 639–646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joe BN, Bae KT, Chen VY, Dynamic MR contrast enhancement characteristics of breast cancer: effect of contrast injection rate (Abstract). Radiology 2003; RSNA Annual Meeting Abstracts, p. 289.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kuhl CK, Peter Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et. al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211: 101–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liney GP, Gibbs P, Hayes C, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the differentiation of breast tumors: user-defined versus semi-automated region-of-interest analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 945–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hensley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off-resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993; 187: 493–501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005; 236: 789–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zeppa R. Vascular response of the breast to estrogen. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1969; 29: 695–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et. al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical phase dependency. Radiology 1997; 203: 137–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser MD, Stoll P, et al. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 1997; 203: 145–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Suggested Reading

  1. 38.
    Padhani AR. (2002) Contrast agent dynamics in breast MRI. In Warren R, Coulthard A, eds. Breast MRI in practice London: Martin Dunitz, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
  2. 39.
    Brinck U. (2004) Tumor angiogenesis. In Fischer U. (2004) Practical MR Mammography. Stuttgart: Thieme Publishing Co., p 22.Google Scholar
  3. 40.
    Brinck U. (2004) Tumor angiogenesis and MR mammography. In Fischer U. (2004) Practical MR Mammography. Stuttgart: Thieme Publishing Co., p 23.Google Scholar
  4. 41.
    Gore JC, Kennan RP. (1999) Physical and physiological basis of magnetic relaxation. In Stark DD, Bradley WG, eds. (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 3rd Edition. New York: C.V. Mosby Publishing Co, Vol 1, pp 33–42.Google Scholar
  5. 42.
    Runge VM, Nelson KL. (1999) Contrast agents. In Stark DD, Bradley WG, eds. (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 3rd Edition. New York: C.V. Mosby Publishing Co, Vol 1, Ch 12, pp 257–276.Google Scholar
  6. 43.
    Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehwg P. (1999) Breasts. In Stark DD, Bradley WG, eds. (1999) Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 3rd Edition. New York: C.V. Mosby Publishing Co, Vol 1, Ch 15, pp 307–320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Personalised recommendations