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

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.