Study Stopped
Low Accrual
Comparison of Contrast Agents in Liver Magnetic Resonance (MR) for the Detection of Hepatic Metastases
Evaluation of Liver Magnetic Resonance (MR) With an Abbreviated Gadobenate Dimeglumine Hepatobiliary Phase Protocol in Comparison to Liver MR With Gadoxetate Disodium for the Detection of Hepatic Metastases
2 other identifiers
interventional
10
1 country
1
Brief Summary
If an abbreviated hepatobiliary phase (HBP) protocol liver MR with gadobenate dimeglumine is shown clinically comparable to standard of care liver MR with gadoxetate disodium for detecting hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer, its use will save time, cost, and patients' effort.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for phase_4
Started Jun 2021
Longer than P75 for phase_4
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
June 22, 2021
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
July 1, 2021
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
July 22, 2021
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
May 6, 2025
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
May 8, 2025
CompletedApril 22, 2026
April 1, 2026
3.9 years
July 1, 2021
April 16, 2026
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (3)
Diagnostic Performance of gadobenate dimeglumine
The primary performance diagnostic will be sensitivity, similar to the recently published retrospective study by Canellas et al. (2019). In addition to other diagnostic performance metrics of interest (e.g., specificity, AUROC), lesions will be analyzed descriptively in terms of number of metastases detected and lesion size.
1 month
Quantitative Measures of hepatobiliary phase images
Mixed effects regression models will again be used to compare the three outcomes between methods, accounting for correlated data. The specific link function of the regression models will depend on the distributional characteristics of each outcome (e.g., logit link for dichotomous outcomes; linear regression for continuously measured outcomes).
1 month
Preference of radiologists for the images generated by amHBP versus aeHBP
The quality of amHBP and aeHBP images will be assessed with ordinal response mixed effect models that include right/left image as a covariate. We will assess if there was any reader specific and/or general bias to prefer an image on the left or the right of a screen, regardless of the amHBP or aeHBP, and consider this when modeling the probability of preference of amHBP over aeHBP. We will estimate the relative probabilities of no-preference, amHBP preference, or aeHBP preference.
1 month
Secondary Outcomes (4)
Compare Sensitivity and Specificity,
1 month
Test Validity of Imaging Methods
1 month
Compare Patient Time Associated with Imaging Method
1 month
Compare Cost Associated with Imaging Method
1 month
Study Arms (2)
Gadoxetate disodium exam first, Gadobenate Dimeglumine exam second
ACTIVE COMPARATORThe subjects will be randomized into two groups. Both groups will undergo two complete protocol liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for known or suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) metastasis, one exam with gadoxetate disodium and the other exam with gadobenate dimeglumine, within an interval of 3-10 days, but in opposite order, determined randomly.
Gadobenate Dimeglumine exam first, Gadoxetate disodium exam second
EXPERIMENTALThe subjects will be randomized into two groups. Both groups will undergo two complete protocol liver MRI for known or suspected CRC metastasis, one exam with gadoxetate disodium and the other exam with gadobenate dimeglumine, within an interval of 3-10 days, but in opposite order, determined randomly.
Interventions
Gadoxetate disodium MR contrast is now mainly used for the purpose of HBP liver MR imaging to save MR scanner time and total examination time.
The most commonly used MR contrast agent in abdominal imaging is gadobenate dimeglumine, which has mainly the characteristics of an extracellular agent used for most indications of MR examinations.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Colorectal cancer patients
- Age 18-80 years
- No prior treatment including surgery
- Prior imaging with suspected liver metastasis
You may not qualify if:
- Age \< 18 years or \> 80 years
- eGFR \< 30 ml/min/1.73 m2
- Previous reaction to gadolinium contrast agents
- History of claustrophobia or movement disorders likely to impact image quality
- Non-MR safe implants or metallic foreign bodies
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- University of Colorado, Denverlead
- Bracco Diagnostics, Inccollaborator
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)collaborator
Study Sites (1)
University of Colorado Hospital
Aurora, Colorado, 80045, United States
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Nikhil Madhuripan, MD
University of Colorado, Denver
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 4
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Masking Details
- We have attempted to mitigate any potential conflict of interest through randomization of the order of exams and blinding the image evaluators to contrast agents.
- Purpose
- DIAGNOSTIC
- Intervention Model
- CROSSOVER
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
July 1, 2021
First Posted
July 22, 2021
Study Start
June 22, 2021
Primary Completion
May 6, 2025
Study Completion
May 8, 2025
Last Updated
April 22, 2026
Record last verified: 2026-04
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will not share