IMAGING TECHNIQUES USED IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA
Abstract
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell disorder, characterised by bone marrow infiltration with clonal plasma cells; production of monoclonal immunoglobulin (paraprotein); end-organ damage; lytic lesions in the bones; renal impairment; hypercalcaemia and anaemia. Skeleton evaluation in MM is necessary not only for staging purposes but also to detect serious complications such as fractures. Skeletal survey is an established rst-line investigation for this purpose. However, in recent years, new imaging techniques such as whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and 2- uoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography computed tomography have been used widely. In this article, we review different imaging techniques used in MM and their impact on patient management.
Key words: Imaging techniques, magnetic resonance imaging, multiple myeloma, osteolytic lesions, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, skeletal survey
References
Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1860-73.
Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R, et al. Multiple myeloma: Clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004;231:11-23.
Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003;78:21-33.
D’Sa S, Abildgaard N, Tighe J, et al. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of myeloma. Br J Haematol 2007;137:49-63.
Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk strati cation and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23:3-9.
Roodman GD. Pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease. Blood Cells Mol Dis 2004;32:290-2.
Collins CD. Multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2004;4 Spec No A: S47-53.
Winterbottom AP, Shaw AS. Imaging patients with myeloma. Clin Radiol 2009;64:1-1.
Zangari M, Esseltine D, Lee CK, et al. Response to bortezomib is associated to osteoblastic activation in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2005;131:71-3.
MulliganME.Skeletalabnormalitiesinmultiplemyeloma. Radiology 2005;234:313-4.
DimopoulosM,TerposE,ComenzoRL,etal.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;23:1545-56.
Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, et al. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: Comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1429-36.
Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP, et al. Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI). Skeletal Radiol 2009;38:225-36.
Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, et al. Ef cacy of multidetector row computed tomography of the spine in patients with multiple myeloma: Comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and uorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:342-7.
Baur-MelnykA,BuhmannS,BeckerC,etal.Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1097-104.
Hanrahan CJ, Christensen CR, et al. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2010;30:127-42.
Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Multiple myeloma: Spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 1992;185:833-40.
Stäbler 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1029-36.
Libshitz HI, Malthouse SR, Cunningham D, et al. Multiple myeloma: Appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 1992;182: 833-7.
Lütje S, de Rooy JW, 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;88:1161-8.
Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, et al. Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma. Part II. Assessment of fracture risk with MR imaging of spinal bone marrow. Radiology 1997;204:201-5.
Lafforgue P, Dahan E, Chagnaud C, et al. Early-stage avascular necrosis of the femoral head: MR imaging for prognosis in 31 cases with at least 2 years of follow-up. Radiology 1993;187:199-204.
Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Weber D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of solitary plasmacytoma of bone. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1311-5.
Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL, et al. Prognostic signi cance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:251-6.
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e538-48.
Bellaïche L, Laredo JD, Lioté F, et al. Magnetic resonance appearance of monoclonal gammopathies of unknown signicance and multiple myeloma. The GRI study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2551-7.
Berg BC, Michaux L, Lecouvet FE, et al. Nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy: Correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory ndings and spontaneous clinical outcome. Radiology 1997;202:247-51.
Laroche M, Assoun J, Sixou L, et al. Comparison of MRI and computed tomography in the various stages of plasma cell disorders: Correlations with biological and histological findings. Myélome-midi-pyrénées group. Clin Exp Rheumatol 1996;14:171-6.
Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, et al. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow in ltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1005-14.
Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1121-8.
Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Alexanian R, et al. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment. Radiology 1994;193:441-6.
Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Dürr HR, et al. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005;55:56-63.
Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, et al. Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: Ef cacy of fat- suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:1049-52.
Hartman RP, Sundaram M, Okuno SH, et al. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: Incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:645-53.
Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: Description of durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:1539-43.
Lecouvet FE, Berg BC, Michaux L, et al. Stage III multiple myeloma: Clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology 1998;209:653-60.
Marckmann P, Skov L, Rossen K, et al. Nephrogenic systemic brosis: Suspected causative role of gadodiamide used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2359-62.
Sager S, Ergül N, Ciftci H, et al. The value of FDG in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40: 843-7.
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.
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;33:525-31.
Durie BG, Waxman AD, D’Agnolo A, et al. Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET identi es high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1457-63.
Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:980-6.
Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F- uorodeoxyglucose 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;92:50-5.
Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, et al. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1199-204.
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;114:2068-76.
Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:361-6.
Mulligan ME, Badros AZ. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2007;36:5-16.
Catalano L, Del Vecchio S, Petruzziello F, et al. Sestamibi and FDG-PET scans to support diagnosis of jaw osteonecrosis. Ann Hematol 2007;86:415-23.
Wiesenthal AA, Nguyen BD. F-18 FDG PET/CT staging of multiple myeloma with diffuse osseous and extramedullary lesions. Clin Nucl Med 2007;32:797-801.
Mele A, Of dani M, Visani G, et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy is sensitive and speci c for the staging and the follow-up of patients with multiple myeloma: A multicentre study on 397 scans. Br J Haematol 2007;136: 729-35.
Ak I, Aslan V, Vardareli E, et al. Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile bone marrow imaging for predicting the levels of myeloma cells in bone marrow in multiple myeloma: Correlation with CD38/CD138 expressing myeloma cells. Ann Hematol 2003;82:88-92.
Nandurkar D, Kalff V, Turlakow A, et al. Focal MIBI uptake is a better indicator of active myeloma than diffuse uptake. Eur J Haematol 2006;76:141-6.
Svaldi M, Tappa C, Gebert U, et al. Technetium-99m- sestamibi scintigraphy: An alternative approach for diagnosis and follow-up of active myeloma lesions after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Ann Hematol 2001;80:393-7.
Fallahi B, Saghari M, Esfahani AF, et al. The value of 99mTc-MIBI whole body scintigraphy in active and in remission multiple myeloma. Hell J Nucl Med 2005;8:165-8.
Catalano L, Andretta C, Pace L, et al. Tc99m-sestaMIBI uptake in nonsecretory multiple myeloma. Hematology 2005;10: 335-8.
Hung G, Tsai C, Tsai S, et al. Comparison of Tc-99m Sestamibi and F-18 FDG-PET in the assessment of multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res 2005;25:4737-41.
Ludwig H, Kumpan W, Sinzinger H. Radiography and bone scintigraphy in multiple myeloma; a comparative analysis. Br Radiol 1982;55:173-81.
Wahner HW, Kyle RA, Beabout JW. Scintigraphic evaluation of the skeleton in multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 1980;55:739-46.
Abildgaard N, Brixen K, Eriksen E, et al. Sequential analysis of biochemical markers of bone resorption and bone densitometry in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2004;89: 567-77.
Abildgaard N, Brixen K, Kristensen JE, et al. Assessment of bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma using bone densitometry. Eur J Haematol 1996;57:370-6.
Mariette X, Bergot C, Ravaud P, et al. Evolution of bone densitometry in patients with myeloma treated with conventional or intensive therapy. Cancer 1995;76:1559-63.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Cancer & Allied Specialties (JCAS) right-of-first publication. In addition, the work will be simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. This license allows others to share the work in whole or part (for non-commercial purpose), with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in JCAS.
Furthermore, authors are free to enter into separate contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to share their work online or in medical or scientific conferences prior to or during submission process.
