PET/CT in Multiple Myeloma: Beyond FDG.
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography
FDG-PET/CT
choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography
methionine positron emission tomography/computed tomography
multiple myeloma
myeloma
new tracers
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2020
accepted:
07
12
2020
entrez:
11
2
2021
pubmed:
12
2
2021
medline:
12
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) have highlighted the importance of imaging methods, not only in the localization and extent of the disease but also in prognostic stratification and assessment of response to therapy. In this context, PET/CT, combining both morphological and functional information, is particularly useful in this pathology. The tracer mostly used is 18F-FDG, a glucose analog, which provides extremely accurate information with a sensitivity ranging from 80 to 100%. However, this tracer has some limitations, mostly related to the physiological uptake of FDG in the bone marrow and brain, which reduce its effectiveness. For this reason, some studies in the literature have evaluated the effectiveness of other PET tracers, which provide information on protein metabolism or the synthesis of metabolic plasma membranes, such as choline and methionine, as well as innovative radiopharmaceuticals, directed against receptors expressed by cells of myeloma, including tracers directed to the chemokine receptor. This review analyzes the characteristics and accuracy of non-FDG tracers in the management of patients with multiple myeloma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33569348
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.622501
pmc: PMC7868556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
622501Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Matteucci, Paganelli, Martinelli and Cerchione.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Jun 15;20(12):3254-60
pubmed: 24714772
Haematologica. 2006 Feb;91(2):200-6
pubmed: 16461304
Blood. 2009 Sep 3;114(10):2068-76
pubmed: 19443657
Clin Nucl Med. 2015 Apr;40(4):303-8
pubmed: 25608167
Blood Cancer J. 2015 Oct 23;5:e364
pubmed: 26495861
Theranostics. 2017 Apr 8;7(6):1589-1597
pubmed: 28529638
Theranostics. 2017 Jul 23;7(11):2956-2964
pubmed: 28824728
Radiology. 2020 Jun;295(3):606-615
pubmed: 32255416
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Apr;18(4):e206-e217
pubmed: 28368259
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Jun 1;16(11):2927-31
pubmed: 20484021
Theranostics. 2017 Jan 1;7(1):205-212
pubmed: 28042328
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Aug 18;12(8):
pubmed: 32824832
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;35(25):2911-2918
pubmed: 28686535
World J Surg Oncol. 2007 Jun 20;5:68
pubmed: 17584499
Blood. 2017 Jul 6;130(1):30-34
pubmed: 28432222
Clin Nucl Med. 2012 Sep;37(9):833-7
pubmed: 22889770
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Nov;15(12):e538-48
pubmed: 25439696
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Oct 1;21(19):4384-90
pubmed: 26078390
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016 Oct;43(11):1995-2004
pubmed: 27121691
J Nucl Med. 2016 Feb;57(2):248-51
pubmed: 26564323
EMBO Mol Med. 2015 Mar 03;7(4):477-87
pubmed: 25736399
Cancer. 2012 Apr 15;118(8):1971-81
pubmed: 21887677
Clin Nucl Med. 2019 Aug;44(8):620-624
pubmed: 31274607
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):e328-e346
pubmed: 27511158
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020 Mar;47(3):537-546
pubmed: 31776631
Haematologica. 2008 Aug;93(8):1269-71
pubmed: 18519518
Blood. 2019 Feb 14;133(7):644-651
pubmed: 30587527
Clin Exp Med. 2015 Feb;15(1):1-18
pubmed: 25218739
Haematologica. 2007 Jan;92(1):50-5
pubmed: 17229635
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 May;40(5):708-15
pubmed: 23340595
J Nucl Med. 2008 Feb;49(2):195-200
pubmed: 18199607
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Jan 10;39(2):116-125
pubmed: 33151787