4.2 Article

Gadolinium released from MR contrast agents is deposited in brain tumors: in situ demonstration using scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy

期刊

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 1126-1136

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02841851.2010.515614

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Pathology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
  2. College of Medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that the local retention of GdCA resulting from brain tumor-associated alterations in the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may result in the deposition of Gd released from the GdCA, depending on stability. Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, 30 selected brain tumor biopsies from 28 patients (taken before and after an institutional switch from a less stable to an intermediate stable GdCA) were searched for Gd-containing deposits using scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM/EDS). Relevant histories and laboratory results were obtained through institutional electronic records. Associations between the presence of deposits and other variables were tested for statistical significance using the two-tailed Fisher's exact test. Results: Insoluble deposits containing Gd associated with phosphorus and calcium were found in seven biopsies from five patients. These deposits were found in patients with estimated GFRs above 53 ml/min, and were detected more often in those receiving GdCA before the switch from a less stable to an intermediate stable GdCA (P = 0.04), and may be more frequent in patients receiving more than one contrast-enhanced MR scan (P = 0.15). Conclusion: Gd-containing deposits are present in brain tumors following contrast-enhanced MR scans in patients without severe renal disease. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical importance of the deposits we observed and to determine whether they are also found in other conditions that alter the integrity of the BBB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据