Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Usefulness of MRI and PET/CT

Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 566-577

  Koppula, Bhasker ^a   Kaptuch, Justin ^a   Hanrahan, Christopher J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEXAMETHASONE; ETIDRONIC ACID TC 99M; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE;

ARTICLE; AUTOLOGOUS STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; AVASCULAR NECROSIS; BONE RADIOGRAPHY; BONE SCINTISCANNING; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DRUG TUMOR LEVEL; GENDER; GRANULOCYTIC SARCOMA; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; ISOTOPE LABELING; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PATHOLOGICAL ANATOMY; PATIENT MONITORING; PLASMACYTOMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL TIME; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84890135042     PISSN: 08872171     EISSN: 15585034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2013.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Kyle R.A., Rajkumar S.V. Multiple myeloma. Blood 2008, 111:2962-2972.
2. Br J Haematol 2003, 121:749-757.
3. Durie B.G., Salmon S.E. 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.
4. Edelstyn G.A., Gillespie P.J., Grebbell F.S. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol 1967, 18:158-162.
5. Baur-Melnyk A., Buhmann S., Durr H.R., et al. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005, 55:56-63.
6. Dimopoulos M., Terpos E., Comenzo R.L., 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.
7. Ghanem N., Lohrmann C., Engelhardt M., et al. 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.
8. Walker R., Barlogie B., Haessler J., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:1121-1128.
9. Munshi N.C. Plasma cell disorders: An historical perspective. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2008, 297.
10. Hanrahan C.J., Christensen C.R., Crim J.R. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT1. Radiographics 2010, 30:127-142.
11. Alexander D.D., Mink P.J., Adami H.-O., et al. Multiple myeloma: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Int J Cancer 2007, 120(suppl 12):40-61.
12. Manaster BJ, Disler May D: Musculoskeletal Imaging: The Requisites (ed 3). St. Louis, MO; London, Mosby, 2006, pp 493-495.
13. Parkin D.M., Bray F., Ferlay J., et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005, 55:74-108.
14. Howlader N, Noonan AM, Krapcho M, et al: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009. U.S. National Institutes of Health. 8/20/2012. WWW.seer.cancer.gov. 5/5/2013.
15. Society AC. Cancer Facts and Figures, 2012.
16. Cohen H.J., Crawford J., Rao M.K., et al. Racial differences in the prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy in a community-based sample of the elderly. Am J Med 1998, 104:439-444.
17. Kumar S.K., Rajkumar S.V., Dispenzieri A., et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008, 111:2516-2520.
18. Kyle R.A., Therneau T.M., Rajkumar S.V., et al. A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2002, 346:564-569.
19. Dimopoulos M., Kyle R., Fermand J.-P., et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: Report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 2011, 4701-4705.
20. Durie B.G.M., Waxman A.D., D'Agnolo A., et al. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002, 43:1457-1463.
21. Durie B.G. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: Description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:1539-1543.
22. Kyle R.A., Gertz M.A., Witzig T.E., et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003, 78:21-33.
23. Dispenzieri A., Kyle R.A., Lacy M.Q., et al. POEMS syndrome: Definitions and long-term outcome. Blood 2003, 101:2496-2506.
24. Miralles G.D., O'Fallon J.R., Talley N.J. Plasma-cell dyscrasia with polyneuropathy. The spectrum of POEMS syndrome. N Engl J Med 1992, 327:1919-1923.
25. Lütje S., de Rooy J.W., Croockewit S., et al. 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.
26. Fruehwald F.X., 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.
27. Lecouvet F.E., Malghem J., Michaux L., et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: Radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999, 106:35-39.
28. Ludwig H., Fruhwald F., Tscholakoff D., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1987, 2:364-366.
29. Bataille R., Chevalier J., Rossi M., et al. Bone scintigraphy in plasma-cell myeloma. A prospective study of 70 patients. Radiology 1982, 145:801-804.
30. Giuliani N., Rizzoli V. Myeloma cells and bone marrow osteoblast interactions: Role in the development of osteolytic lesions in multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 2007, 48:2323-2329.
31. Qiang Y.W., Barlogie B., Rudikoff S., et al. Dkk1-induced inhibition of Wnt signaling in osteoblast differentiation is an underlying mechanism of bone loss in multiple myeloma. Bone 2008, 42:669-680.
32. Tian E., Zhan F., Walker R., et al. The role of the Wnt-signaling antagonist DKK1 in the development of osteolytic lesions in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2483-2494.
33. Hubner K.F., Andrews G.A., Hayes R.L., et al. The use of rare-earth radionuclides and other bone-seekers in the evaluation of bone lesions in patients with multiple myeloma or solitary plasmacytoma. Radiology 1977, 125:171-176.
34. Horger M., Claussen C.D., Bross-Bach U., et al. Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: An alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiol 2005, 54:289-297.
35. Horger M., Kanz L., Denecke B., et al. The benefit of using whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up and therapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 2007, 109:1617-1626.
36. Princewill K., Kyere S., Awan O., et al. Multiple myeloma lesion detection with whole body CT versus radiographic skeletal survey. Cancer Invest 2013, 31:206-211.
37. Bredella M.A., Steinbach L., Caputo G., Segall G., Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol 2005, 184(4):1199-1204.
38. Hillner B.E., Siegel B.A., 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.
39. Antoch G., Vogt F.M., Freudenberg L.S., et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. J Am Med Assoc 2003, 290:3199-3206.
40. Zamagni E., Patriarca F., Nanni C., et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011, 118:5989-5995.
41. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: A systematic review. Cancer 2012, 118:1971-1981.
42. 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.
43. Nanni C., Zamagni E., Farsad M., et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006, 33:525-531.
44. Schirrmeister H., Bommer M., Buck A.K., et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002, 29:361-366.
45. Shortt C.P., Gleeson T.G., Breen K.A., et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:980-986.
46. Barlogie B., Shaughnessy J., Tricot G., et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma. Blood 2004, 103:20-32.
47. Varettoni M., Corso A., Pica G., et al. Incidence, presenting features and outcome of extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma: a longitudinal study on 1003 consecutive patients. Ann Oncol 2010, 21(2):325-330.
48. Wu P., Davies F.E., Boyd K., et al. The impact of extramedullary disease at presentation on the outcome of myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 2009, 50:230-235.
49. Oshima K., Kanda Y., Nannya Y., et al. Clinical and pathologic findings in 52 consecutively autopsied cases with multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol 2001, 67:1-5.
50. Hall M.N., Jagannathan J.P., Ramaiya N.H., et al. Imaging of extraosseous myeloma: CT, PET/CT, and MRI features. Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:1057-1065.
51. Bartel T.B., Haessler J., Brown T.L., 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.
52. Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A., Hoffmann M., Bergner R., et al. 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.
53. Angtuaco E.J., Fassas A.B., Walker R., et al. Multiple myeloma: Clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004, 231:11-23.
54. Rahmouni A., Divine M., Mathieu D., et al. Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: Efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 1993, 160:1049-1052.
55. Hanrahan C.J., Shah L.M. MRI of spinal bone marrow: Part 2, T1-weighted imaging-based differential diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol 2011, 197:1309-1321.
56. Stabler A., Baur A., Bartl R., et al. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: Assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:1029-1036.
57. Baur A., Stabler A., Nagel D., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon?. Cancer 2002, 95:1334-1345.
58. Baur-Melnyk A., Buhmann S., Becker C., et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. American Journal of Roentgenology 2008, 190:1097-1104.
59. Breyer R.J., Mulligan M.E., Smith S.E., et al. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skelet Radiol 2006, 35:632-640.
60. Durie B.G.M., Harousseau J.L., Miguel J.S., et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006, 20:1467-1473.
61. Lecouvet F.E., De Nayer P., Garbar C., et al. Treated plasma cell lesions of bone with MRI signs of response to treatment: Unexpected pathological findings. Skelet Radiol 1998, 27:692-695.
62. Mulligan M.E., Badros A.Z. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skelet Radiol 2007, 36:5-16.
63. Gertz M.A. Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Oncologist 2000, 5:63-67.
64. Kyle R.A., Rajkumar S.V. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009, 23:3-9.
65. Singh J., Fairbairn K.J., Williams C., et al. Expert radiological review of skeletal surveys identifies additional abnormalities in 23% of cases: Further evidence for the value of myeloma multi-disciplinary teams in the accurate staging and treatment of myeloma patients. Br J Haematol 2007, 137:172-173.
66. Greipp P.R., San Miguel J., Durie B.G., et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:3412-3420.
67. Warren J.L., Harlan L.C., Stevens J., et al. Multiple myeloma treatment transformed: A population-based study of changes in initial management approaches in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2013, 31(16):1984-1989.
68. Fulciniti M., Tassone P., Hideshima T., et al. Anti-DKK1 mAb (BHQ880) as a potential therapeutic agent for multiple myeloma. Blood 2009, 114:371-379.
69. Mulligan M., Chirindel A., Karchevsky M. Characterizing and predicting pathologic spine fractures in myeloma patients with FDG PET/CT and MR imaging. Cancer Invest 2011, 29:370-376.
70. Weber W.A., Avril N., Schwaiger M. Relevance of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 1999, 175:356-373.
71. Dankerl A., Liebisch P., Glatting G., et al. Multiple myeloma: Molecular imaging with 11C-methionine PET/CT-Initial experience. Radiology 2007, 242:498-508.
72. Nakamoto Y., Kurihara K., Nishizawa M., et al. Clinical value of (11)C-methionine PET/CT in patients with plasma cell malignancy: Comparison with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013, 40:708-715.
73. Melton L.J., Kyle R.A., Achenbach S.J., et al. Fracture risk with multiple myeloma: A population-based study. J Bone Miner Research 2005, 20:487-493.
74. Talamo G., Angtuaco E., Walker R.C., et al. Avascular necrosis of femoral and/or humeral heads in multiple myeloma: Results of a prospective study of patients treated with dexamethasone-based regimens and high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:5217-5223.
75. Hartman R.P., Sundaram M., Okuno S.H., et al. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: Incidence and MRI findings. Am J Roentgenol 2004, 183:645-653.