Your goal is to extract structured information from the user's input that matches the form described below. When extracting information please make sure it matches the type information exactly. Do not add any attributes that do not appear in the schema shown below.

```TypeScript

 { // Information on the clinical trial characteristics from the abstract
 conditions: string // The condition or disease being treated in the clinical trial
 drug_or_intervention: string // The drug or intervention used in the clinical trial
}
```


Please output the extracted information in JSON format. Do not output anything except for the extracted information. Do not add any clarifying information. Do not add any fields that are not in the schema. If the text contains attributes that do not appear in the schema, please ignore them. All output must be in JSON format and follow the schema specified above. Wrap the JSON in <json> tags.



Input:Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).  To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2010 Clinical trial registration no. NCT00486473 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/). http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100968/-/DC1. Output:
{'conditions': 'Breast Cancer', 'interventions': 'Drug: Multihance|Drug: Magnevist'}