Evolving role of FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma imaging and management

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 200, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 884-890

  Agarwal, Ankit ^a   Chirindel, Alin ^b   Shah, Bhartesh A ^a   Subramaniam, Rathan M ^a,b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

MRI; Multiple myeloma; PET CT

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

BONE RADIOGRAPHY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE COURSE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSION FREE SURVIVAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT RESPONSE; CANCER STAGING; PATHOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING;

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY AND COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84878216222     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9653     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Laubach JP, Mitsiades CS, Mahindra A, et al. Novel therapies in the treatment of multiple myeloma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7: 947-960
2. Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1672-1694
3. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 212-236
4. Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003; 78: 21-33
5. Lütje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2009; 88: 1161-1168
6. Hanrahan CJ, Christensen CR, Crim Jr. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT. Radio- Graphics 2010; 30: 127-142
7. Raab MS, Podar K, Breitkreutz I, Richardson PG, Anderson KC. Multiple myeloma. Lancet 2009; 374: 324-339
8. 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
9. Walker RC, Brown TL, Jones-Jackson LB, De Blanche L, Bartel T. Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 1091-1101
10. Fonseca R, Blood E, Rue M, et al. Clinical and biologic implications of recurrent genomic aberrations in myeloma. Blood 2003; 101: 4569-4575
11. Bladé J, Lust JA, Kyle RA. Immunoglobulin D multiple myeloma: presenting features, response to therapy, and survival in a series of 53 cases. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 2398-2404
12. Hu Y, Chen L, Sun CY, She XM, Ai LS, Qin Y. Clinical significance of chromosomal abnormalities detected by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Chin Med J (Engl) 2011; 124: 2981-2985
13. Smadja NV, Bastard C, Brigaudeau C, Leroux D, Fruchart C. Hypodiploidy is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 2001; 98: 2229- 2238
14. Calasanz MJ, Cigudosa JC, Odero MD, et al. Hypodiploidy and 22q11 rearrangements at diagnosis are associated with poor prognosis in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997; 98: 418-425
15. Fonseca R, Harrington D, Oken MM, et al. Biological and prognostic significance of interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization detection of chromosome 13 abnormalities (delta13) in multiple myeloma: an eastern cooperative oncology group study. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 715-720
16. Shaughnessy J Jr, Tian E, Sawyer J, et al. Prognostic impact of cytogenetic and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization-defined chromosome 13 deletion in multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy II. Br J Haematol 2003; 120: 44-52
17. Chang H, Sloan S, Li D, Keith Stewart A. Multiple myeloma involving central nervous system: high frequency of chromosome 17p13.1 (p53) deletions. Br J Haematol 2004; 127: 280-284
18. Munshi NC, Anderson KC, Bergsagel PL, et al. Consensus recommendations for risk stratification in multiple myeloma: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 2. Blood 2011; 117: 4696-4700
19. Ito H, Ishii K, Okada K, Shirota T. Major symptoms of multiple myeloma and their management: neurologic disorders [in Japanese]. Nihon Rinsho 1995; 53: 684-689
20. Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA. Neurological aspects of multiple myeloma and related disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2005; 18: 673-688
21. Schluterman KO, Fassas AB, Van Hemert RL, Harik SI. Multiple myeloma invasion of the central nervous system. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 1423- 1429
22. Chang H, Bartlett ES, Patterson B, Chen CI, Yi QL. The absence of CD56 on malignant plasma cells in the cerebrospinal fluid is the hallmark of multiple myeloma involving central nervous system. Br J Haematol 2005; 129: 539-541
23. Kwan L, Wang C, Levitt L. Hyperammonemic encephalopathy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1674-1675
24. Talamo G, Cavallo F, Zangari M, et al. Hyperammonemia and encephalopathy in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2007; 82: 414- 415
25. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, et al. 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
26. Karantanis D, O'Neill BP, Subramaniam RM, et al. Contribution of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the detection of systemic spread of primary central nervous system lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 2007; 32: 271-274
27. Subramaniam RM, Wilcox B, Aubry MC, Jett J, Peller PJ. 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009; 53: 160-169; quiz, 170
28. Davison JM, Ozonoff A, Imsande HM, Grillone GA, Subramaniam RM. Squamous cell carcinoma of the palatine tonsils: FDG standardized uptake value ratio as a biomarker to differentiate tonsillar carcinoma from physiologic uptake. Radiology 2010; 255: 578-585
29. Dibble EH, Lara Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. 18F-FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 709-715
30. Imsande HM, Davison JM, Truong MT, et al. Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with head-and-neck non-squamous cell carcinoma. AJR 2011; 197: 976-980
31. Jackson T, Chung M, Ozonoff A, Mercier G, Subramaniam R. FDG PET/CT inter-observer agreement in head and neck cancer: FDG and CT measurements of the primary tumor site. Nucl Med Commun 2012; 33: 305-312
32. Sacks A, Peller PJ, Surasi DS, Chatburn L, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. Value of PET/CT in the management of liver metastases, part 1. AJR 2011; 197: 365; [web]W256-W259
33. Sacks A, Peller PJ, Surasi DS, Chatburn L, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. Value of PET/CT in the management of primary hepatobiliary tumors, part 2. AJR 2011; 197: 366; [web]W260-W265
34. Davison JM, Subramaniam RM, Surasi DS, Cooley T, Mercier G, Peller PJ. FDG PET/CT in patients with HIV. AJR 2011; 197: 284-294
35. Shah B, Srivastava N, Hirsch AE, Mercier G, Subramaniam RM. Intra-reader reliability of FDG PET volumetric tumor parameters: effects of primary tumor size and segmentation methods. Ann Nucl Med 2012; 26: 707-714
36. 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
37. Ludwig H, Fruhwald F, Tscholakoff D, Rasoul S, Neuhold A, Fritz E. Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1987; 330: 364-366
38. Fruehwald FX, Tscholakoff D, Schwaighofer B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lower vertebral column in patients with multiple myeloma. Invest Radiol 1988; 23: 193-199
39. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999; 106: 35-39
40. Dinter DJ, Neff WK, Klaus J, et al. Comparison of whole-body MR imaging and conventional x-ray examination in patients with multiple myeloma and implications for therapy. Ann Hematol 2009; 88: 457-464
41. Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR 2005; 184: 1199-1204
42. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, et al. Role of 18FFDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 525-531
43. 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
44. Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, Patrikeos A, Hicks RJ, Prince HM. A comparison of fluorine- 18 fluoro-deoxyglucose PET and technetium- 99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2004; 72: 32-37
45. Hung GU, Tsai CC, Tsai SC, Lin WY. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi and F-18 FDG-PET in the assessment of multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res 2005; 25: 4737-4741
46. Jadvar H, Conti PS. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2002; 31: 690-694
47. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and wholebody planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007; 92: 50-55
48. van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen II, Zweegman S, Hoekstra OS, Zijlstra JM. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Cancer 2012; 118: 1971-1981
49. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155-2161
50. Kim PJ, Hicks RJ, Wirth A, et al. Impact of 18Ffluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography before and after definitive radiation therapy in patients with apparently solitary plasmacytoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 740-746
51. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Hoffmann M, Bergner R, Uppenkamp M, Haberkorn U, Strauss LG. Prediction of progression-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma following anthracycline- based chemotherapy based on dynamic FDG-PET. Clin Nucl Med 2009; 34: 576-584
52. Derlin T, Weber C, Habermann CR, et al. 18FFDG PET/CT for detection and localization of residual or recurrent disease in patients with mul-tiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 493-500
53. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with upfront autologous transplantation. Blood 2011; 118: 5989-5995
54. Breyer RJ 3rd, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2006; 35: 632-640
55. Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 2011; 117: 4701-4705
56. Rajkumar SV, Harousseau JL, Durie B, et al. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood 2011; 117: 4691-4695