Laura Martincich1, Matthieu Faivre-Pierret2,
Christian M. Zechmann3, Stefano Corcione4, Harrie C. M.
van Den Bosch5, Wei-Jun Peng6, Antonella Petrillo7,
Katja Siegmann8, Johannes T. Heverhagen9, Pietro
Panizza10, Hans-Bjrn Gehl11, Felix Diekmann12,
Federica Pediconi13, Lin Ma14, Fiona J. Gilbert15,
Francesco Sardanelli16, Paolo Belli17
1Department of Diagnostic
Imaging, Institute for Cancer Research & Treatment (IRCC), Candiolo,
Torino, Italy; 2Center Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; 3German
Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany; 4University Hospital
S. Anna, Ferrara, Italy; 5Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven,
Netherlands; 6Cancer Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China,
People's Republic of; 7National Cancer Institute, Fondazione G.
Pascale, Napoli, Italy; 8University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen,
Germany; 9University Hospital, Philipps University, Marburg,
Germany; 10Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy; 11Klinikum
Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany; 12Universittsklinikum Charit,
Berlin, Germany; 13University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy; 14Chinese
People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China, People's
Republic of; 15Aberdeen Biomedical Imaging Centre, Aberdeen, United
Kingdom; 16Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy; 17Institute
of Radiology, "A. Gemelli", Rome, Italy
In an intra-individual crossover comparison of 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in 162 women, three unaffiliated, blinded readers each detected significantly more malignant breast lesions with gadobenate dimeglumine (132-136 [91.7-94.4%] vs. 115-120 [79.9-83.3%]; p0.0003). Cancer misdiagnosis rates were roughly double with gadopentetate dimeglumine (4.9-11.9% vs. 2.6-4.0%). Significantly better sensitivity (91.1-95.2% vs. 81.2-84.6%; p0.0011), specificity (96.9-99.0% vs. 93.8-97.8%; p0.0094), accuracy (96.7-98.2% vs. 92.8-96.1%; p<0.0001), PPV (77.2-91.1% vs. 60.9-80.7%; p0.0002) and NPV (99.0-99.4% vs. 97.8-98.1%; p0.0003), was noted with gadobenate dimeglumine for cancer detection. Three-reader agreement was good (76.4%; =0.689) for gadobenate dimeglumine but moderate (66.2%; =0.574) for gadopentetate dimeglumine.