IMAGING TECHNIQUES USED IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA

  • Abdul Hameed Department of Medical Oncology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Johar Town, Lahore
  • Paul Foran Department of Radiology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin
  • Peter O'Gorman Department of Haematology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin
  • Jonathan Ryan Department of Radiology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin

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.

Published
2015-04-30
How to Cite
1.
Hameed A, Foran P, O’Gorman P, Ryan J. IMAGING TECHNIQUES USED IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA. J Cancer Allied Spec [Internet]. 2015Apr.30 [cited 2022Dec.5];1(1). Available from: https://journals.sfu.ca/jcas/index.php/jcas/article/view/19