This study involves the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agents called gadobutrol (Gadavist) Injection and ProHance Injection. The purpose of this study is to look at the safety (what are the side effects) and efficacy (how well does it work) of gadobutrol when used for taking MR images of the brain and spine. The results of the MRI with gadobutrol Injection will be compared to the results of MR images taken without contrast and with the results of the MR images taken with ProHance.

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

Diagnostic Imaging

Central Nervous System Diseases

Issues on safety will be addressed in Adverse Events section.

Gadobutrol (Gadavist, Gadovist, BAY86-4875)

Gadoteridol (ProHance)

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Crossover, 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)

BR1 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.

BR2 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.

BR3 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 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.

The 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.

The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers

The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers.

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 and determined the number of lesion from each.

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 gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs in another and determined the number of lesion from each.

The AR analysis used the mean of the values for the 3 blinded readers. The 3 BRs evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs in another and determined the number of lesion from each.

The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs. 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 clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.

The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs. 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 clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.

The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs. 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 clinical investigators evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs and the combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRIs in another to determine the total number of lesions.

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 were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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 were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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/gadoteridol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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/gadoteridol-enhanced and the unenhanced MR images were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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 combined unenhanced/gadoteridol-enhanced MR images were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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 clinical investigator diagnoses for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced and the combined unenhanced/gadoteridol-enhanced MR images were evaluated for consistency with the final clinical diagnosis.

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.

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.

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.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of abnormal brain tissue.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of abnormal brain tissue.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes abnormal brain tissue as defined by the independent truth committee.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) matches the standard of truth for the presence or absence of malignant lesions.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly detects malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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 (Gadobutrol-enhanced or Gadoteridol-enhanced) correctly excludes malignant lesions as defined by the independent truth committee.

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.

The BRs recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for 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.

The investigator recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident.

The investigator recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the unenhanced MR image set and the combined unenhanced/gadoteridol-enhanced MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident.

The investigator recorded his/her confidence in diagnosis for the combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced MR image sets and the combined unenhanced/gadoteridol MR image sets. The degree of confidence was rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = not confident and 4 = very confident.

The BRs evaluated the relative image quality of the gadobutrol-enhanced T1w MR images and the gadoteridol-enhanced T1w MR images in a paired fashion on a 5-point scale where 1 = image on right was worse, 2 = image on right was slightly worse, 3 = both images were the same, 4 = image on right was slightly better, and 5 = image on right was better.

Percentage of participants for which blinded readers said image quality was higher

Two BRs independently provided the number of contrast-enhanced lesions for gadobutrol and gadoteridol. In cases of disagreement between the readers, an independent adjudicator provided the number of contrast-enhanced lesions. The adjudicator results were used in the analysis in the cases of disagreement between the original readers

From the quantitative signal intensity values assessed by the BR, the percentage of lesion enhancement from unenhanced to combined unenhanced/enhanced was calculated.

Participants received a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous) in Period 1 and a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. in Period 2.

Participants received a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. in Period 1 and a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg bw via i.v. in Period 2.

West Alabama Research, Inc.

Achieve Clinical Research, LLC

Los Gatos MRI

Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian

Redwood Regional Medical Group, Inc.

University of Florida - Jacksonville

NorthShore University HealthSystem-Evanston Hospital

Atchison Hospital

University of Maryland Hospital System

Johns Hopkins Hospital/Health System

Shields MRI - Brockton

VA Boston Healthcare System-West Roxbury Division

Washington University School of Medicine

University of New Mexico School of Medicine

Kingston Neurological Associates, PC

NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases

Duke University Medical Center

The Cleveland Clinic

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

Allegheny General Hospital

Rhode Island Hospital

Medical University of South Carolina

University of Washington Medical Center

Aurora Saint Luke's Medical Center

Royal Prince Alfred Hospital

St George Hospital

Westmead Hospital

Monash Medical Centre

Landeskrankenhaus Donauregion Tulln

Medizinische Universität Graz

LNK Wagner Jauregg

Allgemeines Krankenhaus der Stadt Wien Universitätskliniken

Fundación Instituto de Alta tecnología médica de Antioquia

Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá - Hospital Universitario

DIME Clinica Neurocardiovascular S.A.

Centro de Diagnostico Medico

Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum

Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe gGmbH

Klinikum Mannheim gGmbH

Zentralklinikum Augsburg

Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

LMU Klinikum der Universität München - Großhadern

Klinikum rechts der Isar

Klinikum Ernst von Bergmann

Universitätsklinikum Hamburg Eppendorf (UKE)

Krankenhaus Nordwest

Kliniken der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover

Medizinische Einrichtungen der Universität Bonn

Universitätsklinikum Köln

Medizinisches Versorgungszentrum Prof. Dr. D. Uhlenbrock

Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes

Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus

Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR

Klinikum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität

Universitätsklinikum Charite zu Berlin

HELIOS Klinikum Erfurt GmbH

CT /MRI centre

Piramal Diagnostic- Jankharia Imaging

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences

Bombay Hospital, Institute of Medical sciences

Nagoya Kyoritsu Clinic

Nagoya Kyoritsu Hospital

Social Insurance Chukyo Hospital

Himeji Medical Center

Himeji Central Hospital

Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation

Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital

Shinsuma Hospital

Utano National Hospital

Kishiwada Tokushukai Hospital

Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases

Osaka National Hospital

Osaka General Medical Center

Shimonoseki Kosei Hospital

Universitätsspital Basel

Hôpital Cantonal Universitaire de Genève

Kantonsspital St. Gallen

Inselspital Bern

Luzerner Kantonsspital

Participants received a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous)

Gadobutrol (Gadavist, BAY86-4875)

Participants received a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v.

Includes participants who received either treatment

Entire Study Population

< 45 years

45-64 years

≥ 65 years

Age, Customized

Sex: Female, Male

Caucasian

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Other

Race/Ethnicity, Customized

Therapeutic Area Head

contrast enhancement

border delineation

internal morphology

Participants had diagnostic imaging before receiving any contrast agent

Unenhanced

Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced

The full analysis set (FAS); which used data from all participants for whom data and images were available for the unenhanced MRI, combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRI, and combined unenhanced and gadoteridol-enhanced MRI, excluding the sample participants (the first participant from each study site).

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)

All participants in the FAS with assessments for this outcome measure.

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)

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)

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)

Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Readers

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced

Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader

Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI Compared to Unenhanced MRI by Average Reader

Participants received a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v.

Scores for Three Visualization Parameters (Contrast Enhancement, Border Delineation and Internal Morphology) for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI by Average Reader

Number of Lesions for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI Compared to Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI by Average Reader

Participants had diagnostic imaging before receiving any contrast agent. Lesions detected by Unenhanced MRI were compared to Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI.

Unenhanced Compared to Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced

Participants received a single dose of gadobutrol 0.1 mmol/kg body weight (bw) via i.v. (intravenous). Lesions detected by Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI were compared to Unenhanced MRI.

Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced Compared to Unenhanced

Percentage of Participants With More Lesions Detected for Combined Unenhanced/Gadobutrol-enhanced MRI or for Unenhanced MRI by Blinded Readers

Participants had diagnostic imaging before receiving any contrast agent. Lesions detected by Unenhanced MRI were compared to Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI.

Unenhanced Compared to Gadoteridol-enhanced

Participants received a single dose of gadoteridol at the approved dose, 0.1 mmol/kg bw, via i.v. Lesions detected by Combined Unenhanced/Gadoteridol-enhanced MRI were compared to Unenhanced MRI.

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

About this trial

Study ID

Status

Type

Phase

Placebo

Accepting

Trial Timing

What is this trial about?

What are the participation requirements?