BR1 (reader 1 of 3) evaluated the images from the unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (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 full analysis set (FAS); which used data from all participants for whom data and images were available for the unenhanced MRI and combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRI, excluding the sample participants (the first participant from each study site).

BR2 (reader 2 of 3) 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.

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

BR3 (reader 3 of 3) 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.

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

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.

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

The 3 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.

FAS

The clinical investigators 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 data for "contrast enhancement - unenhanced" were not collected for the clinical investigators.

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

The clinical investigators 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.

FAS

BR1 (reader 1 of 3) 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.

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

BR2 (reader 2 of 3) 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.

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

BR3 (reader 3 of 3) 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.

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

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.

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

BR1 (reader 1 of 3) 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.

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

BR2 (reader 2 of 3) 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.

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

BR3 (reader 3 of 3) 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.

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

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.

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

The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs. Contrast enhancement was scored on a 4-point scale where 1 = no enhancement and 4 = excellent enhancement. The data for contrast enhancement - gadobutrol combined was shown below.

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

The clinical investigators evaluated the images from the unenhanced MRI in one session and the images from the combined unenhanced and gadobutrol-enhanced MRIs in another. 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.

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

The clinical investigators 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.

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

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 was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.

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

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 was the percentage of the exact matches with the final clinical diagnosis.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

FAS

The investigator 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.

FAS