Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021; 31(03): 635-643
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735500
Review Article

The Use of Gadolinium in Musculoskeletal MRI—Time to Rethink?

Arwa Elawad
1   Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
,
Amit Shah
1   Department of Radiology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
,
Mark Davies
2   Department of Radiology, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom
,
Rajesh Botchu
2   Department of Radiology, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging has continued to evolve over the recent decades, in part, due to the evolution of gadolinium-based contrast agents and their use. These were initially thought to have a relatively low-risk profile. However, there is mounting evidence that trace amounts of gadolinium are retained within the body. To ascertain the current use of gadolinium in medical practice, we performed a survey of musculoskeletal radiologists, within the United Kingdom, Europe and India. The survey demonstrated varied practices amongst all radiologists with relatively indiscriminate use of gadolinium. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for and against the use of gadolinium in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging.

Keywords

gadolinium - contrast - musculoskeletal - magnetic resonance imaging - brain deposition


Publication History

Article published online:
07 September 2021

© 2021. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Lohrke J, Frenzel T, Endrikat J. et al. 25 years of contrast-enhanced MRI: developments, current challenges and future perspectives. Adv Ther 2016; 33 (01) 1-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ma LD. Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: skeletal and soft tissue masses. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 1999; 28 (02) 29-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dean Deyle G. The role of MRI in musculoskeletal practice: a clinical perspective. J Manual Manip Ther 2011; 19 (03) 152-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Khedr S, Hassaan M, Abdelrazek N, Sakr A. Diagnostic impact of echo planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal neoplastic masses using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping as a quantitative assessment tool. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2012; 43 (02) 219-226
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Golfieri R, Baddeley H, Pringle JS, Leung AW, Greco A, Souhami R. MRI in primary bone tumors: therapeutic implications. Eur J Radiol 1991; 12 (03) 201-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Crues J, Bydder G. Frontiers in musculoskeletal imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25 (02) 232-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 The Royal College of Radiologists. Guidance on gadolinium-based contrast agent administration to adult patients. London Ref No. BFCR (19)4. Accessed August 27, 2021 at: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/guidance-gadolinium-based-contrast-agent-administration-adult-patients
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Lee DH. Mechanisms of contrast enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging. Can Assoc Radiol J 1991; 42 (01) 6-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kanda T, Oba H, Toyoda K, Kitajima K, Furui S. Brain gadolinium deposition after administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. Jpn J Radiol 2016; 34 (01) 3-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Runge V, Stewart R, Clanton J, Lukehart C, Partain C, James A. Work in progress: potential oral and intravenous paramagnetic NMR contrast agents. Magn Reson Imaging 1984; 2 (01) 69
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 May DA, Good RB, Smith DK, Parsons TW. MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors and tumor mimickers with intravenous gadolinium: experience with 242 patients. Skeletal Radiol 1997; 26 (01) 2-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lo HH, Kalisher L, Faix JD. Epithelioid sarcoma:radiologic and pathologic manifestations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977; 128 (06) 1017-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Soldatos T, Durand DJ, Subhawong TK, Carrino JA, Chhabra A. Magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal infections: systematic diagnostic assessment and key points. Acad Radiol 2012; 19 (11) 1434-1443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Towers JD. The use of intravenous contrast in MRI of extremity infection. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18 (04) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Caravan P, Farrar CT, Frullano L, Uppal R. Influence of molecular parameters and increasing magnetic field strength on relaxivity of gadolinium- and manganese-based T1 contrast agents. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2009; 4 (02) 89-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lusic H, Grinstaff MW. X-ray-computed tomography contrast agents. Chem Rev 2013; 113 (03) 1641-1666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Runge VM, Ai T, Hao D, Hu X. The developmental history of the gadolinium chelates as intravenous contrast media for magnetic resonance. Invest Radiol 2011; 46 (12) 807-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ranga A, Agarwal Y, Garg KJ. Gadolinium based contrast agents in current practice: risks of accumulation and toxicity in patients with normal renal function. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2017; 27 (02) 141-147
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Xia D, Davis RL, Crawford JA, Abraham JL. Gadolinium released from MR contrast agents is deposited in brain tumors: in situ demonstration using scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Acta Radiol 2010; 51 (10) 1126-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kanda T, Ishii K, Kawaguchi H, Kitajima K, Takenaka D. 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 2014; 270 (03) 834-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB. International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16 (07) 564-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Costa A, Ronchi A, Pigatto PD, Guzzi G. Brain gadolinium deposition, hyperintense MRI signals, and resonance contrast agents. Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 52: 137-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Guo BJ, Yang ZL, Zhang LJ. Gadolinium deposition in brain: current scientific evidence and future perspectives. Front Mol Neurosci 2018; 11: 335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Roccatagliata L, Vuolo L, Bonzano L, Pichiecchio A, Mancardi GL. Multiple sclerosis: hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with the secondary progressive subtype. Radiology 2009; 251 (02) 503-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kasahara S, Miki Y, Kanagaki M. et al. Hyperintense dentate nucleus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images is associated with a history of brain irradiation. Radiology 2011; 258 (01) 222-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Miller JH, Hu HH, Pokorney A, Cornejo P, Towbin R. MRI brain signal intensity changes of a child during the course of 35 gadolinium contrast examinations. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (06) e1637-e1640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roberts DR, Holden KR. Progressive increase of T1 signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images in the pediatric brain exposed to multiple doses of gadolinium contrast. Brain Dev 2016; 38 (03) 331-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF. et al. Intracranial gadolinium deposition after contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 772-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M. et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015; 276 (01) 228-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sanyal S, Marckmann P, Scherer S, Abraham JL. Multiorgan gadolinium (Gd) deposition and fibrosis in a patient with nephrogenic systemic fibrosis—an autopsy-based review. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 26 (11) 3616-3626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ. et al. Gadolinium retention in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus is dependent on the class of contrast agent. Radiology 2015; 275 (03) 783-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cao Y, Huang DQ, Shih G, Prince MR. Signal change in the dentate nucleus on T1-weighted MR images after multiple administrations of gadopentetate dimeglumine versus gadobutrol. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206 (02) 414-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ. et al. 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 2015; 50 (12) 805-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Orenstein B. Gadolinium on the brain: curiosity or cause for concern?. Radiol Today 2016; 17 (07) 20
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Parillo M, Sapienza M, Arpaia F. et al. A structured survey on adverse events occurring within 24 hours after intravenous exposure to gadodiamide or gadoterate meglumine: a controlled prospective comparison study. Invest Radiol 2019; 54 (04) 191-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Burke LM, Ramalho M, AlObaidy M, Chang E, Jay M, Semelka RC. Self-reported gadolinium toxicity: a survey of patients with chronic symptoms. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34 (08) 1078-1080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 PRAC. gadolinium deposition confirmed with linear agents. Reactions Weekly. 2017; 1661 (01) 6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schmidt K, Bau M, Merschel G, Tepe N. Anthropogenic gadolinium in tap water and in tap water-based beverages from fast-food franchises in six major cities in Germany. Sci Total Environ 2019; 687: 1401-1408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Thomsen HS. Are the increasing amounts of gadolinium in surface and tap water dangerous?. Acta Radiol 2017; 58 (03) 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Cheng SG. Musculoskeletal MRI: contrast and non-contrast applications. Appl Radiol 2002; 31 (06) 81-86
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Amini B, Murphy Jr WA, Haygood TM. et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agents improve detection of recurrent soft-tissue sarcoma at MRI. Radiol Imaging Cancer 2020; 2 (02) e190046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Drapé JL. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumours. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (Suppl. 01) S115-S123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. The use of gadolinium in the MR evaluation of soft tissue tumors. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18 (04) 251-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Verstraete KL, Van der Woude HJ, Hogendoorn PC, De-Deene Y, Kunnen M, Bloem JL. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: basic principles and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 6 (02) 311-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Nascimento D, Suchard G, Hatem M, de Abreu A. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tumours and tumour-like lesions. Insights Imaging 2014; 5 (04) 419-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Miwa S, Otsuka T. Practical use of imaging technique for management of bone and soft tissue tumors. J Orthop Sci 2017; 22 (03) 391-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sundaram M. The use of gadolinium in the MR imaging of bone tumors. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18 (04) 307-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Reiser MF, Bongartz GP, Erlemann R. et al. Gadolinium-DTPA in rheumatoid arthritis and related diseases: first results with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Skeletal Radiol 1989; 18 (08) 591-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Cimmino MA, Innocenti S, Livrone F, Magnaguagno F, Silvestri E, Garlaschi G. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in patients with rheumatoid arthritis can discriminate active from inactive disease. Arthritis Rheum 2003; 48 (05) 1207-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Aoki T, Yamashita Y, Saito K, Tanaka Y, Korogi Y. Diagnosis of early-stage rheumatoid arthritis: usefulness of unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MR images at 3 T. Clin Imaging 2013; 37 (02) 348-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Miese F, Buchbender C, Scherer A. et al. Molecular imaging of cartilage damage of finger joints in early rheumatoid arthritis with delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64 (02) 394-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Stomp W, Krabben A, van der Heijde D. et al. Aiming for a simpler early arthritis MRI protocol: can Gd contrast administration be eliminated?. Eur Radiol 2015; 25 (05) 1520-1527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 König H, Sieper J, Wolf KJ. Rheumatoid arthritis: evaluation of hypervascular and fibrous pannus with dynamic MR imaging enhanced with Gd-DTPA. Radiology 1990; 176 (02) 473-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Hopkins KL, Li KC, Bergman G. Gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal infectious processes. Skeletal Radiol 1995; 24 (05) 325-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Steinbach LS, Palmer WE, Schweitzer ME. Special focus session. MR arthrography. Radiographics 2002; 22 (05) 1223-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Zampa V, Bargellini I, Ortori S, Faggioni L, Cioni R, Bartolozzi C. Osteoid osteoma in atypical locations: the added value of dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2009; 71 (03) 527-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Erlemann R, Reiser M, Peters PE, Wuisman P, Niendorf HP, Kunze V. Time-dependent changes in signal intensity in neoplastic and inflammatory lesions of the musculoskeletal system following intravenous administration of Gd-DTPA. Radiologe 1988; 28 (06) 269-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Crespo-Rodríguez AM, De Lucas-Villarrubia JC, Pastrana-Ledesma M, Hualde-Juvera A, Méndez-Alonso S, Padron M. The diagnostic performance of non-contrast 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (3-T MRI) versus 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance arthrography (1.5-T MRA) in femoro-acetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol 2017; 88: 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Chopra A, Grainger AJ, Dube B. et al. Comparative reliability and diagnostic performance of conventional 3T magnetic resonance imaging and 1.5T magnetic resonance arthrography for the evaluation of internal derangement of the hip. Eur Radiol 2018; 28 (03) 963-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Magee T. 3-T MRI of the shoulder: is MR arthrography necessary?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192 (01) 86-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Li X, Liu X, Du X, Ye Z. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessing synovitis of wrist and hand in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 32 (04) 350-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Major NM, Browne J, Domzalski T, Cothran RL, Helms CA. Evaluation of the glenoid labrum with 3-T MRI: is intraarticular contrast necessary?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196 (05) 1139-1144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Symanski JS, Subhas N, Babb J, Nicholson J, Gyftopoulos S. Diagnosis of superior labrum anterior-to-posterior tears by using MR imaging and MR arthrography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2017; 285 (01) 101-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Ajuied A, McGarvey CP, Harb Z, Smith CC, Houghton RP, Corbett SA. Diagnosis of glenoid labral tears using 3-tesla MRI vs. 3-tesla MRA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (05) 699-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar