A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

Haematologica

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 50-55

  Zamagni, Elena ^a   Nanni, Cristina ^b   Patriarca, Francesca ^c   Englaro, Emanuela ^d   Castellucci, Paolo ^b   Geatti, Onelio ^d   Tosi, Patrizia ^a   Tacchetti, Paola ^a   Cangini, Delia ^a   Perrone, Giulia ^a   Ceccolini, Michela ^a   Brioli, Annamaria ^a   Buttignol, Silvia ^c   Fanin, Renato ^c   Salizzoni, Eugenio ^b   Baccarani, Michele ^a   Fanti, Stefano ^b   Cavo, Michele ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

^d SANTA MARIA DELLA MISERICORDIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography; Bone disease; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiple myeloma; Whole body planar radiographs

Indexed keywords

DEXAMETHASONE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; MELPHALAN; THALIDOMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOTRANSPLANTATION; BONE DISEASE; BONE LESION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; TREATMENT RESPONSE; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION; BONE NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 33846916461     PISSN: 03906078     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.10554     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Terpos E, Politou M, Rahemtulla A. New insights into the pathophysiology and management of bone disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2003;123:758-69.
2. Mitsiades CS, Mitsiades N, Munshi NC, Anderson KC. Focus on multiple myeloma. Cancer Cell 2004;6:439-44.
3. Kyle RA., Rajkumar V. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1860-73.
4. Sezer O. Myeloma bone disease. Hematology 2005;1:19-24.
5. Berenson JR. Advances in the biology and treatment of myeloma bone disease. Semin Oncol 2002;29 Suppl 17:11-6.
6. Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma: correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment and survival. Cancer 1975;36:842-54.
7. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Maldague B, Ferrant A, Michaux JL, et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999;106:35-9.
8. Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004;231:11-23.
9. Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, Patrikeos A, Hicks RJ, Prince HM. A comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2004;72:32-7.
10. Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Role of positron emission tomography in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4577-80.
11. Einat Even-Sapir. Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1356-67.
12. Jadvar H, Conti PS. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skel Radiol 2002;31:690-4.
13. Schirmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, Miller S, Messer P, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using FDG-PET. Eur J Haematol Med 2002;29:361-6.
14. Durie GM, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams CM. Whole body 18F-FDG-PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1457-63.
15. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Tosi P, Cangini D, et al. Role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:525-31.
16. International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma. Br J Haematol 2001;121:749-57.
17. Cavo M, Zamagni E, Tosi P, Tacchetti P, Cellini C, Cangini D, et al. Superiority of thalidomide and dexamethasone over vincristine-doxorubicine- dexamethasone (VAD) as primary therapy in preparation for autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma. Blood 2005;106:35-9.
18. Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA, Leeds NE, Kim EE, Johnston DA, et al. Multiple myeloma: spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 1992;185:833-40.
19. BladèJ, Samson D, Reece D, Apperley J, Bjorkstrand B, Gahrton G, et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol 1998;102:1115-23.
20. Moulopolous LA, Dimopoulos MA, Alexanian R, Leeds NE, Libshitz HI. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment. Radiol 1994;193:441-6.
21. Attal M, Harousseau JI, Facon T, Guilhot F, Doyen C, Fuzibet JG, et al. Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2495-502.
22. Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Radiol 2005;184:1199-204.
23. Ell PJ. The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 2006;79:32-6.
24. Baur A, Stäbler A, Nagel A, Lamerz R, Bartl R, Hiller E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging of Durie and Salmon. Cancer 2002;95:1334-45.