Editorial, J Clin Exp Radiol Vol: 1 Issue: 1

Current Status of Gadolinium Retention in the Brain

Bakhour D and Saade C^*

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut, 11002020, Lebanon

*Corresponding Author : Dr. Charbel Saade
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, American University of Beirut, 11002020, Lebanon
Tel: +961 3857720
E-mail: cs39@aub.edu.lb

Received: March 17, 2017 Accepted: January 03, 2018 Published: January 10, 2018

Citation: Bakhour D, Saade C (2018) Current Status of Gadolinium Retention in the Brain. J Clin Exp Radiol 1:1.

Abstract

Keywords: Ferromagnetic property, Macrocyclic agents

Editorial

Gadolinium (Gd³⁺) based contrast agents previously demonstrated safe administration and were associated with minimal events of adverse reactions until NSF and gadolinium deposits were found in the brain. Gadolinium is a paramagnetic earth lanthanoid element with a ferromagnetic property that is suitable for intravenous administration. Recently, a series of studies raised their concern over the higher risk of developing NSF when administering nonionic linear agents such as gadodiamide and gadoversetamide [1,2]. This is due to the rapid dechelation characteristic of the agents, resulting in the release of gadolinium ion (Gd³⁺) to the surrounding tissues [2]. Since then, guidelines have been established restricting dosage recommendation for patients with compromised renal statuses.

However, in 2014, another concern was raised on the deposition of gadolinium in patients with healthy, uncompromised renal function. This new connection was first reported by Kanda et al. who concluded that an increase in signal intensities in the dentate nucleus (DN) and globus pallidus (GP) was observed in patients who received gadolinium based contrast agents [3]. Kanda et al. further proved his hypothesis in 2015 by examining autopsy samples of patients who underwent gadolinium based contrast agents and found that traces of gadolinium were deposited in their brain [4]. Shortly thereafter, several studies concluded the same hypothesis and demonstrated deposition of gadolinium in the brain of autopsies who previously underwent gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance examinations [3,5,6]. This revelation alerted the medical experts on the risk of administering gadolinium based contrast agents because of its observed insolubility properties at physiologic pH, and the long-term effect of repeated gadolinium injection.

Over the part 2 years, several studies demonstrated an increase in signal intensity (SI) with observed T1 shortening on unenhanced T1-weighted MRI in the DN and GP after multiple administration of linear nonionic agents (gadodiamide, gadoversetamide) and linear ionic agents (gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadobenate dimeglumine) [3,4,7-12]. Linear ionic liver-specific gadoxetic acid also reported significant increased SI in the DN and GP with patients who previously administered macrocyclic agents (more than 10 administrations) as observed by the increase ration in middle cerebellar peduncle, pons and thalamus [13]. The structure of gadolinium based contrast agents was later suggested to affect the deposition in the brain, other than its chelating characteristic, where Ramalho et al. reported significantly higher increase in SI with gadodiamide compared with gadobenate dimeglumine in DN [8]. However, no reported cases of gadolinium brain deposition were observed after multiple administration of macrocyclic agents (gadoterate meglumine, gadoteridol, gadobutrol), even with 20 or more serial injections [4,10,11,14-16].

This year in Vienna at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR), a study stated that macrocyclic agents demonstrated no deposits in the rat’s brain when employing macrocyclic agents when compared to the linear agents. Additionally, it was found that there were no histopathological changes in tissue when resected with both linear and macrocyclic agents.

A week later on March 10^th, the European Medicines Agency provided a statement in that linear gadolinium contrast media agents shall be removed from clinical practice [17,18]. However, they did recommend that some linear agents such as gadoxetic acid and gadopentetic acid and macrocyclic agents to remain available at a very low concentration dose.

This dispersion in results warrant further research in the matter of Gadolinium and its long term deposition in the body. Since conflicting views have been observed regarding the deposition of both linear and macrocyclic gadolinium in the brain, research should be aimed at formulating decreased contrast volume and administration in patients, regardless of their renal status, until clear evidence is demonstrated. Findings by McDonald et al. detected gadolinium in the endothelial walls, where a third portion appeared to have crossed the intact blood brain barrier [5]. However, the form of gadolinium was not yet confirmed as to whether it was chelated or free form. This uncertainty demonstrates that gadolinium bio distribution is not fully explored and yet, gadolinium based contrast agents have been administered to over 100 million patients.

There is no doubt of the advantages of gadolinium based contrast agents and their benefits in terms of diagnosing, screening and monitoring of tumors. However, future research should be focused on addressing the gadolinium ion in a holistic approach, and possibly finding safer alternatives of administration. Until then, gadolinium based contrast agents administration should be reduced to the absolute minimal in current medical imaging and Gd³⁺ contrast media delivery strategies is needed more than ever.

References

1. Grobner T (2006) Gadolinium–a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 21: 1104-1108.
2. Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, Dupont A, Damholt MB, et al. (2006) Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 17: 2359-2362.
3. Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D, et al. (2013) High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material. Radiology 270: 834-841.
4. Kanda T, Osawa M, Oba H, Toyoda K, Kotoku Ji, et al. (2015) High signal intensity in dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: association with linear versus macrocyclic gadolinium chelate administration. Radiology 275: 803-809.
5. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, Jentoft ME, Murray DL, et al. (2015) Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 275: 772-782
6. Murata N, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Murata K, Fligner C, Dills R, et al. (2016) Macrocyclic and other non–group 1 gadolinium contrast agents deposit low levels of gadolinium in brain and bone tissue: preliminary results from 9 patients with normal renal function. Invest Radiol 51: 447-453.
7. Errante Y, Cirimele V, Mallio CA, Di Lazzaro V, Zobel BB, et al. (2014) Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity of the dentate nucleus on unenhanced magnetic resonance images is associated with cumulative doses of intravenously administered gadodiamide in patients with normal renal function, suggesting dechelation. Invest Radiol 49: 685-690.
8. Ramalho J, Castillo M, AlObaidy M, Nunes RH, Ramalho M, et al. (2015) High signal intensity in globus pallidus and dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: evaluation of two linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. Radiology 276: 836-844.
9. Ramalho J, Semelka RC, AlObaidy M, Ramalho M, Nunes RH, et al. (2016) Signal intensity change on unenhanced T1-weighted images in dentate nucleus following gadobenate dimeglumine in patients with and without previous multiple administrations of gadodiamide. Eur Radiol 26: 4080-4088.
10. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, Eidel O, Burth S, et al. (2015) Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 275: 783-791.
11. Cao Y, Huang DQ, Shih G, Prince MR. (2016) Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. Am J Roentgenol 206: 414-419.
12. Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, Kickingereder P, Wick W, Bendszus M, et al. (2015) Increased signal intensity in the dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted images after gadobenate dimeglumine administration. Invest Radiol 50: 743-748
13. Kahn J, Posch H, Steffen IG, Geisel D, Bauknecht C, et al. (2017) Is There Long-term Signal Intensity Increase in the Central Nervous System on T1-weighted Images after MR Imaging with the Hepatospecific Contrast Agent Gadoxetic Acid? A Cross-sectional Study in 91 Patients. Radiology 28: 708-716
14. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, Hepp J, Kickingereder P, et al. (2015) High-signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evaluation of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent gadobutrol. Invest Radiol 50: 805-810
15. Kromrey ML, Liedtke KR, Ittermann T, Langner S, Kirsch M, et al. (2017) Intravenous injection of gadobutrol in an epidemiological study group did not lead to a difference in relative signal intensities of certain brain structures after 5 years. Eur Radiol 27: 772-777
16. Schlemm L, Chien C, Bellmann-Strobl J, Dörr J, Wuerfel J, et al. (2016) Gadopentetate but not gadobutrol accumulates in the dentate nucleus of multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scle 1352458516670738
17. Radbruch A, Haase R, Kieslich PJ, Weberling LD, Kickingereder P, et al. (2016) No Signal Intensity Increase in the Dentate Nucleus on Unenhanced T1-weighted MR Images after More than 20 Serial Injections of Macrocyclic Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents. Radiology: 162-241
18. PRAC concludes assessment of gadolinium agents used in body scans and recommends regulatory actions, including suspension for some marketing authorisations. European Medicines Agency. 2017(EMA/157486/2017).