Back

Iron Oxide Nanoparticle MRI for Human Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Protocol Level Meta analysis of Administered Doses Across Ferumoxtran 10, Ferumoxytol, and Ferumoxides

Fahim, F.; Safari Dehnavi, N.; Hemmati, M.; Sabbagh Alvani, M.; Khorram, A.; Saravani, A.; Rezaeian, A.; Pashazadeh, M. P.; Mohammadzadeh, I.; Oveisi, S.; Oraee-Yazdani, S.; Zali, A.

2025-12-11 neurology
10.64898/2025.12.07.25341771 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) have recognized limitations for accurate delineation of brain tumor margins and perfusion assessment in neuro-oncology. Nanoparticle contrast agents (NP-CAs), particularly ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxides (USPIOs), may overcome these limitations by providing delayed uptake and tissue characterization. MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and trial registries on July 2025 for human neuro-oncology studies using NP-CAs. The primary outcome was the change in relative cerebral blood volume ({Delta}rCBV) compared with that of GBCA imaging at prespecified time points. The secondary outcomes were the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), reader-rated margin delineation, and safety. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias via tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Random effects meta-analysis was performed when [≥]3 comparable datasets were available; otherwise, the results were synthesized narratively. ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria. Agents included ferumoxtran-10, ferumoxytol, and ferumoxides, with intravenous doses ranging from 0.56-7.00 mg Fe/kg. The pooled common-effect mean dose was 4.65 mg/kg. Across heterogeneous designs, NP-CAs consistently enhanced margin delineation and perfusion metrics: ferumoxtran-10 produced sharp, persistent T2/T2* rims beyond T1-GBCA enhancement, and ferumoxytol-based DSC (Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast) yielded a higher rCBV with reduced leakage effects. No serious adverse events were reported; infusion reactions were rare and inconsistently defined. ConclusionsCompared with GBCA, NP-CAs, particularly USPIOs, improve brain tumor margin visualization and perfusion assessment. However, methodological heterogeneity and small sample sizes limit certainty. Standardized protocols for dosing, acquisition, and safety monitoring, alongside biopsy-validated prospective trials, are needed before clinical adoption.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.1%
2
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.0%
4
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
6
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.2%
8
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
9
Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
10
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
12
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.4%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.4%
15
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
72 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
16
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
17
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
18
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.8%
21
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
23
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%