Nuclear medicine in multiple myeloma -more than diagnosis

Nuclear Medicine Review

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 32-36

  Cascini, Giuseppe Lucio ^a   Cuccurullo, Vincenzo ^b   Tamburrini, Oscar ^a   Mansi, Luigi ^b   Rotondo, Antonio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MAGNA GRAECIA OF CATANZARO   (Italy)

^b SECOND UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES   (Italy)

Author keywords

Diagnostic imaging; Myeloma; Nuclear medicine; PET FDG; Tc 99m MIBI

Indexed keywords

ETIDRONIC ACID TC 99M; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GALLIUM CITRATE GA 67; METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M; PENTETREOTIDE IN 111; SOMATOSTATIN RECEPTOR;

BONE RADIOGRAPHY; BONE SCINTISCANNING; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DUAL ENERGY X RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NEOPLASM STAGING; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PROGNOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 78650725863     PISSN: 15069680     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Sher T, Miller KC, Deeb G, Lee K, Chanan-Khan A. Plasma cell leukaemia and other aggressive plasma cell malignancies. Br J Haematol 2010; 150: 418-427.
2. Kumar S. Multiple myeloma -current Issues and controversies. Cancer Treat Rev 2010; 36 (suppl 2): S3-S11.
3. Kyle RA, Durie BG, Rajkumar SV et al.; International Myeloma Working Group. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smouldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management. Leukemia 2010; 24: 1121-1127.
4. Yaccoby S. Advances in the understanding of myeloma bone disease and tumour growth. Br J Haematol 2010; 149; 311-321.
5. Harousseau JL, Dreyling M; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Multiple myeloma: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (suppl 4): 97-99.
6. Collins CD. Multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2010; 10: 20-31.
7. 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: 842-854.
8. Wahlin A, Holm J, Osterman G, Norberg B. Evaluation of serial bone X-ray examination in multiple myeloma. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 385-387.
9. Mulligan M, Smith S, Talmi D. Whole body radiography for bone survey screening of cancer and myeloma patients. Cancer Invest 2008; 26: 916-922.
10. Mulligan ME. Skeletal abnormalities in multiple myeloma. Radiology 2005: 234; 213-214.
11. Kropil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB, Blondin D, Kobbe G, Modder U, Cohnen M. Comparison of whole-body 64-sllce multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography In staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 51-58.
12. Winterbottom AR Shaw AS. Imaging patients with myeloma. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 1-11.
13. Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1005-1014.
14. Fechtner K, Hillengass J, Delorme S et al. Staging monoclonal plasma cell disease: comparison of the Durie-Salmon and the Dune-Salmon PLUS staging systems. Radiology 2010; 257: 195-204.
15. Tamburrini O, Cova MA, Console D, Martingano P. The evolving role of MRI in oncohaematological disorders. Radiol Med 2007; 112: 703-721.
16. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL et al. IMWG. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23: 1545-1556.
17. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BGM. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3412-3420.
18. Kanoh T, Ohno T, Uehino H, amamoto I, Torizuka K. Avid uptake of 67-Ga in multiple myeloma. An additional indicator of the aggressive phase. Clin Nucl Med 1987; 12: 482-484.
19. Ludwig H, Kupman W, Sinzinger H. Radiography and bone scintigraphy in multiple myeloma: a comparative analysis. Br J Radiol 1982; 55: 173-181.
20. Scutellari PN, Spanedda R, Feggi LM, Cervi PM. The value and limitations of total body scan in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: a comparison with conventional radiography. Hematologica 1985; 70: 136-142.
21. Chiu M, Kronange JF, Piwnica-Worms D. Effect of mitochondrial and plasma membrane potentials on the accumulation of hexakis (2-methoxyisobutylisonitrile) technetium in cultured mouse fibroblasts. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1990; 31: 1646-1653.
22. Aktolun C, Bayhan H, Kir M. Clinical experience with Tc-99m MIBI imaging in patients with malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with TI-201. Clin Nucl Med 1992; 17: 171-177.
23. Waxman AD, Ashok G, Kooba A. The use of Tc-99m methoxyisobutyl-isonitrile (MIBI) in evaluation of patients with primary carcinoma of the breast: comparison with TI-201 J Nucl Med 1993; 34 (suppl): 140P
24. Jonsson C, Jacobsson H. Accumulation of Tc-99m MIBI in bone marrow. Ann Nucl Med 1996; 3: 281-290.
25. Catalano L, Pace L, Califano C et al. Detection of focal myeloma lesions by technetium-99 m-sestaMIBI scintigraphy. Haematologica 1999; 84: 119-124.
26. Alexandrakis MG, Passam FH, Malliaraki N, Katachanakis C, Kyriakou DS, Margioris AN. Evaluation of bone disease in multiple myeloma: a correlation between biochemical markers of bone metabolism and other clinical parameters in untreated multiple myeloma patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2002; 325: 51-57.
27. Pace L, Catalano L, Pinto A et al. Different patterns of technetium-99m sestamibi uptake in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25: 714-720.
28. Alexandrakis MG, Kyriakou DS, Passam FH, Malliaraki N, Christophoridou AV, Karkavitsas N. Correlation between the uptake of Tc-99m-sestaMIBI and prognostic factors in patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Lab Haematol 2002; 24: 155-159.
29. Erten N, Saka B, Berberoglu K et al. Technetium-99m 2-methoxyisobutyl- isonitrile uptake scintigraphy in detection of the bone marrow infiltration in multiple myeloma: correlation with MRI and other prognostic factors. Ann Hematol 2007; 86: 805-813.
30. Mele A, Offidani M, Visani G et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy is sensitive and specific for the staging and the follow-up of patients with multiple myeloma: a multicentre study on 397 scans. Br J Haematol 2007; 136: 729-735.
31. Pace L, Catalano L, Del Vecchio S et al. Predictive value of technetium99m sestamibi in patients with multiple myeloma and potential role in the follow-up. Eur J Nucl Med 2001 ; 28: 304-312.
32. Pace L, Catalano L, Del Vecchio S et al. Washout of [99mTc] sestamibi In predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 49: 281-285.
33. Fonti R, Del Vecchio S, Zannetti A et al. Bone marrow uptake of 99mTc-MIBI in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 214-220.
34. Agool A, Slart RH, Dierckx RA et al. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy might be useful for detecting skeleton abnormalities in patients with multiple myeloma and plasmacytoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37: 124-130.
35. el-Shirbiny AM, Yeung H, Imbriaco M, Michaeli J, Macapinlac H, Larson SM. Technetium-99m-MIBI versus fluorine-18-FDG in diffuse multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1208-1210.
36. Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 361-366.
37. Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 195-200.
38. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hunt E, Coleman RE. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/ /CT on intended management: findings of the national oncologic PET registry. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1928-1935.
39. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F et al. 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 2007; 92: 50-55.
40. Shortt CR Gleeson TG, Breen KA et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 980-986.
41. Durie BG, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams CM. Whole-body (18) F-FDG PET Identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1457-1463.
42. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114: 2068-2076.