search
Back to results

Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar ( Gadavist ) in Patients for Central Nervous System (CNS) Imaging

Primary Purpose

Central Nervous System Diseases

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
International
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Gadobutrol (Gadavist, Gadovist, BAY86-4875)
Sponsored by
Bayer
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Central Nervous System Diseases focused on measuring Central Nervous System Imaging, Diagnostic Imaging

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients referred for contrast enhanced MRI of the CNS based on symptoms or previous procedures.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients with acute renal insufficiency
  • Patients with severe renal disease
  • Patients with any contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging.

Sites / Locations

  • HOPE Research Institute, LLC
  • Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd.
  • Radiology Ltd.
  • Landmark Imaging Medical Group
  • Cedars- Sinai Medical Center
  • Sharp & Children's MRI Center
  • University of Florida - Jacksonville
  • University of South Florida
  • River Birch Research Alliance, LLC
  • Eisenhower Army Medical Center
  • University of Michigan Health System
  • Henry Ford Health System
  • Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc.
  • Maimonides Medical Center
  • Mount Sinai Medical Center
  • University of Rochester Medical Center
  • Wake Forest University School of Medicine
  • Hahnemann University Hospital
  • Allegheny General Hospital
  • Medical University of South Carolina
  • Baylor College of Medicine
  • Investigaciones Médicas
  • Milbet Diagnostico por Imagenes
  • Hospital Italiano Buenos Aires
  • Centro de Diagnóstico Dr. Enrique Rossi
  • Zhongda Hosp. affiliated of Southeast Univ.
  • The 1st Affiliated Hosp of the 4th Military Med Uni
  • Chinese PLA General Hosp.
  • Affiliated Ruijin Hosp. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. Med School
  • Fudan University Huashan Hospital
  • Fundación Instituto de Alta tecnología médica de Antioquia
  • Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá - Hospital Universitario
  • The Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital
  • Seoul National University Hospital
  • Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine
  • Samsung Medical Center
  • Asan Medical Center

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm Type

Experimental

Arm Label

Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875)

Arm Description

Participants were administered a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous) bolus administration using a power injector via a peripheral vein (an antecubital vein was preferred). Gadobutrol was injected at a rate of 2 mL/second followed by a 20-mL 0.9% saline flush at the same rate.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Readers
The 3 blinded readers evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible. The data for "contrast enhancement - unenhanced" were not collected for the clinical investigators.
Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Contrast Enhancement for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. The data for contrast enhancement - gadobutrol combined was shown below.
Scores for Two Visualization Parameters (Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Percentage (Per.) of the Exact Diagnostic Matches (Accuracy of Diagnosis) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. The accuracy of the majority reader diagnoses for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.
Percentage (Per.) of the Exact Diagnostic Matches (Accuracy of Diagnosis) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. The accuracy of the investigator diagnoses for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.
Accuracy of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of abnormal brain tissue.
Sensitivity of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.
Specificity of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee
Accuracy of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.
Sensitivity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Specificity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Accuracy of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.
Sensitivity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Specificity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Diagnostic Confidence for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader
The BRs recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident. The AR score was the mean of the means of the 3 BRs.
Diagnostic Confidence for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
The investigator recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident.

Full Information

First Posted
February 18, 2008
Last Updated
January 16, 2014
Sponsor
Bayer
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00623467
Brief Title
Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar ( Gadavist ) in Patients for Central Nervous System (CNS) Imaging
Official Title
A Multicenter, Open-label, Phase 3 Study to Determine the Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar (Gadavist) in Patients Referred for Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Central Nervous System (CNS).
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
January 2014
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
December 2007 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
December 2008 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
December 2008 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Bayer

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This is a study involving the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agents called Gadavist. The purpose of this study is to look at the safety (what are the side effects) and efficacy (how well does it work) of Gadavist when used for taking images of the brain and spine. The results of the MRI will be compared to the results of images taken without Gadavist.
Detailed Description
Issues on safety will be addressed in Adverse Events section.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Central Nervous System Diseases
Keywords
Central Nervous System Imaging, Diagnostic Imaging

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Single Group Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Non-Randomized
Enrollment
343 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875)
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants were administered a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous) bolus administration using a power injector via a peripheral vein (an antecubital vein was preferred). Gadobutrol was injected at a rate of 2 mL/second followed by a 20-mL 0.9% saline flush at the same rate.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Gadobutrol (Gadavist, Gadovist, BAY86-4875)
Intervention Description
Gadobutrol single injection 0.1 mmol/kg BW via IV bolus administration at 2mL/sec.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
Description
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
Description
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
Description
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
Description
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Readers
Description
The 3 blinded readers evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible. The data for "contrast enhancement - unenhanced" were not collected for the clinical investigators.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
Description
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
Description
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
Description
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
Description
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 1 (BR1)
Description
BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 2 (BR2)
Description
BR2 (reader 2 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Reader 3 (BR3)
Description
BR3 (reader 3 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader (AR)
Description
The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Contrast Enhancement for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. The data for contrast enhancement - gadobutrol combined was shown below.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Two Visualization Parameters (Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Normal Structures for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. Border delineation was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no or unclear delineation and 4 = excellent delineation. Internal morphology was scored on a 3-point scale where 1 = poorly visible and 3 = sufficiently visible.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Percentage (Per.) of the Exact Diagnostic Matches (Accuracy of Diagnosis) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
Description
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. The accuracy of the majority reader diagnoses for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Percentage (Per.) of the Exact Diagnostic Matches (Accuracy of Diagnosis) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. The accuracy of the investigator diagnoses for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Accuracy of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
Description
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of abnormal brain tissue.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Sensitivity of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
Description
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Specificity of Detection of Normal/Abnormal Brain Tissue for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader Using T1-weighted (T1w) Images
Description
The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs for the T1w assessment (normal or abnormal). The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Accuracy of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Sensitivity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Specificity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Majority Reader
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The majority reader diagnosis was the diagnosis provided by at least 2 of the 3 BRs. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee not using the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Accuracy of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Accuracy = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Sensitivity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Sensitivity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Specificity of Detection of Malignant Lesions (ML) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The presence of malignant lesions was derived from the diagnoses given by the investigator on the evaluation of the unenhanced image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced image sets. The final clinical diagnosis was provided by an independent truth committee following evaluation of findings from referral through a 3-month follow-up period, not including the study-specific MR image sets. Specificity = percentage of participants for which the imaging modality (unenhanced or Gadobutrol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Diagnostic Confidence for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader
Description
The BRs recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident. The AR score was the mean of the means of the 3 BRs.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol
Title
Diagnostic Confidence for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Clinical Investigator
Description
The investigator recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident.
Time Frame
Up to 2 hours after injection of gadobutrol

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Patients referred for contrast enhanced MRI of the CNS based on symptoms or previous procedures. Exclusion Criteria: Patients with acute renal insufficiency Patients with severe renal disease Patients with any contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Bayer Study Director
Organizational Affiliation
Bayer
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
HOPE Research Institute, LLC
City
Phoenix
State/Province
Arizona
ZIP/Postal Code
85050
Country
United States
Facility Name
Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd.
City
Scottsdale
State/Province
Arizona
ZIP/Postal Code
85258
Country
United States
Facility Name
Radiology Ltd.
City
Tucson
State/Province
Arizona
ZIP/Postal Code
85711
Country
United States
Facility Name
Landmark Imaging Medical Group
City
Los Angeles
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
90025
Country
United States
Facility Name
Cedars- Sinai Medical Center
City
Los Angeles
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
90048
Country
United States
Facility Name
Sharp & Children's MRI Center
City
San Diego
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92123
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Florida - Jacksonville
City
Jacksonville
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
32209
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of South Florida
City
Tampa
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
33606
Country
United States
Facility Name
River Birch Research Alliance, LLC
City
Blue Ridge
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30513
Country
United States
Facility Name
Eisenhower Army Medical Center
City
Fort Gordon
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30905
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Michigan Health System
City
Ann Arbor
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48109-5302
Country
United States
Facility Name
Henry Ford Health System
City
Detroit
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48202
Country
United States
Facility Name
Bio-Magnetic Resonance, Inc.
City
Madison Heights
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48071
Country
United States
Facility Name
Maimonides Medical Center
City
Brooklyn
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
11219
Country
United States
Facility Name
Mount Sinai Medical Center
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10029
Country
United States
Facility Name
University of Rochester Medical Center
City
Rochester
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
14642
Country
United States
Facility Name
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
City
Winston-Salem
State/Province
North Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
27157
Country
United States
Facility Name
Hahnemann University Hospital
City
Philadelphia
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
19102
Country
United States
Facility Name
Allegheny General Hospital
City
Pittsburgh
State/Province
Pennsylvania
ZIP/Postal Code
15212
Country
United States
Facility Name
Medical University of South Carolina
City
Charleston
State/Province
South Carolina
ZIP/Postal Code
29425
Country
United States
Facility Name
Baylor College of Medicine
City
Houston
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
77030
Country
United States
Facility Name
Investigaciones Médicas
City
Buenos Aires
State/Province
Ciudad Auton. de Buenos Aires
ZIP/Postal Code
C1082A
Country
Argentina
Facility Name
Milbet Diagnostico por Imagenes
City
Buenos Aires
State/Province
Ciudad Auton. de Buenos Aires
ZIP/Postal Code
C1115AAB
Country
Argentina
Facility Name
Hospital Italiano Buenos Aires
City
Buenos Aires
State/Province
Ciudad Auton. de Buenos Aires
ZIP/Postal Code
C1181ACH
Country
Argentina
Facility Name
Centro de Diagnóstico Dr. Enrique Rossi
City
Buenos Aires
State/Province
Ciudad Auton. de Buenos Aires
ZIP/Postal Code
C1425BEE
Country
Argentina
Facility Name
Zhongda Hosp. affiliated of Southeast Univ.
City
Nanjing
State/Province
Jiangsu
ZIP/Postal Code
210009
Country
China
Facility Name
The 1st Affiliated Hosp of the 4th Military Med Uni
City
Xi'an
State/Province
Shaanxi
ZIP/Postal Code
710032
Country
China
Facility Name
Chinese PLA General Hosp.
City
Beijing
ZIP/Postal Code
100853
Country
China
Facility Name
Affiliated Ruijin Hosp. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. Med School
City
Shanghai
ZIP/Postal Code
200025
Country
China
Facility Name
Fudan University Huashan Hospital
City
Shanghai
ZIP/Postal Code
200040
Country
China
Facility Name
Fundación Instituto de Alta tecnología médica de Antioquia
City
Medellín
State/Province
Antioquia
Country
Colombia
Facility Name
Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá - Hospital Universitario
City
Bogotá
State/Province
Cundinamarca
Country
Colombia
Facility Name
The Catholic University of Korea Seoul St. Mary's Hospital
City
Seoul
State/Province
Korea
ZIP/Postal Code
110-744
Country
Korea, Republic of
Facility Name
Seoul National University Hospital
City
Seoul
ZIP/Postal Code
110-799
Country
Korea, Republic of
Facility Name
Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine
City
Seoul
ZIP/Postal Code
120-752
Country
Korea, Republic of
Facility Name
Samsung Medical Center
City
Seoul
ZIP/Postal Code
135-710
Country
Korea, Republic of
Facility Name
Asan Medical Center
City
Seoul
ZIP/Postal Code
138-736
Country
Korea, Republic of

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Learn more about this trial

Safety and Efficacy of Gadobutrol 1.0 Molar ( Gadavist ) in Patients for Central Nervous System (CNS) Imaging

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs