Optimization of whole-body 2-[
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Multiple Myeloma
/ diagnostic imaging
Neoplasm Staging
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
/ methods
Positron-Emission Tomography
Radiopharmaceuticals
/ pharmacology
Whole Body Imaging
/ methods
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging
Multimodal imaging
Multiple myeloma
Positron-emission tomography
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
received:
06
05
2021
accepted:
30
09
2021
revised:
08
09
2021
pubmed:
30
11
2021
medline:
28
4
2022
entrez:
29
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine the optimal 2-[ Radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists reviewed all PET/MRI exams of 104 patients with a monoclonal gammopathy (MG). The presence of focal and diffuse bone marrow involvement (BMI) was assessed using 4 different image datasets: WB-MRI, PET, WB-PET/MRI, and WB-DCE-PET/MRI. A reference standard was established by a panel review of all baseline and follow-up imaging, and biological and pathological information. The diagnostic performance for each image dataset to detect BMI was evaluated and compared (Fisher's exact test). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for focal BMI of WB-MRI was 87%, 97%, and 92%; of PET was 78%, 97%, and 95%; of WB-PET/MRI was 93%, 97%, and 95%; and of WB-DCE-PET/MRI was 93%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. WB-PET/MRI and WB-DCE-PET/MRI were statistically superior to PET (p = 0.036) without decreasing specificity. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of WB-MRI for diffuse BMI detection was 91%, 80%, and 85%; of 3DT1-PET was 53%, 89%, and 74%; of WB-PET/MRI was 98%, 66%, and 79%; and of WB-DCE-PET/MRI was 98%, 59%, and 75%, respectively. PET lacked sensitivity compared to all other dataset studies (p < 0.0001). WB-MRI had the best accuracy without reaching statistical significance when compared to the other datasets. The WB-PET/MRI dataset including T1 and T2 Dixon, WB-DWI, and PET images provides optimal diagnostic performance to detect both focal lesions and diffuse BMI, with limited added value of WB-DCE for baseline staging of patients with MG. Key Points • The combination of morphological and functional MRI sequences and metabolic (2-[
Identifiants
pubmed: 34842956
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08388-6
pii: 10.1007/s00330-021-08388-6
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radiopharmaceuticals
0
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3085-3096Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F et al (2007) A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose 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 92:50–55
doi: 10.3324/haematol.10554
Breyer RJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ (2006) Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 35:632–640
doi: 10.1007/s00256-006-0127-z
Lütje S, de Rooy JWJ, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJG, Raymakers RA (2009) Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 88:1161–1168
doi: 10.1007/s00277-009-0829-0
Durie BGM, Kyle RA, Belch A et al (2003) Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the scientific advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J 4:379–398
doi: 10.1038/sj.thj.6200312
Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C et al (2003) Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 121:749–757
Moulopoulos LA, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A et al (2005) Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 16:1824–1828
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi362
Cascini GL, Falcone C, Console D et al (2013) Whole-body MRI and PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients during staging and after treatment: personal experience in a longitudinal study. Radiol Med 118:930–948
doi: 10.1007/s11547-013-0946-7
Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C et al (2011) Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 118:5989–5995
doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386
Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber M-A et al (2010) Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 28:1606–1610
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5356
Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C et al (2017) Review role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol 18:e206–e2017
Fechtner K, Hillengass J, Delorme S et al (2010) Staging monoclonal plasma cell disease: comparison of the Durie-Salmon and the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging systems. Radiology 257:195–204
doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091809
Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV et al (2019) International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol 20:e302–e312
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2
Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D et al (2017) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Tri. J Clin Oncol 35:2911–2918
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.2975
Koutoulidis V, Fontara S, Terpos E et al (2017) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the bone marrow: an adjunction tool for the diagnosis of a diffuse mr imaging pattern in patients with multiple myeloma. Radiology 282:484–493
Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ et al (2014) Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of Treatment response in Myeloma. Radiology 271:785–794
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131529
Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Christoulas D et al (2010) Diffuse MRI marrow pattern correlates with increased angiogenesis, advanced disease features and poor prognosis in newly diagnosed myeloma treated with novel agents. Leukemia 24:1206–1212
doi: 10.1038/leu.2010.70
Nosàs-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K et al (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:154–162
doi: 10.1002/jmri.20349
Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K et al (2009) Patients with plasma cell disorders examined at whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology 250:905–915
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503081017
Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K et al (2010) Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 254:521–531
doi: 10.1148/radiol.09090629
Messiou C, Hillengass J, Delorme S et al (2019) Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS). Radiology 291:5–13
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019181949
Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5
Filonzi G, Mancuso K, Zamagni E et al (2017) A comparison of different staging systems for multiple myeloma: can the MRI pattern play a prognostic role? AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:152–158
Ormond Filho AG, Carneiro BC, Pastore D et al (2019) Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: diagnostic criteria. Radiographics 39:1077–1097
doi: 10.1148/rg.2019180096
Dutoit JC, Verstraete KL (2017) Whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 46:733–750
doi: 10.1007/s00256-017-2609-6
Larbi A, Omoumi P, Pasoglou V et al (2019) Whole-body MRI to assess bone involvement in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of the T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and high b-values diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Eur Radiol 29:4503–4513
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5796-1
Lecouvet FE, Boyadzhiev D, Collette L et al (2020) MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma: diagnostic performance and clinical relevance. Eur Radiol 30:1927–1937
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06469-1
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
doi: 10.2307/2529310
Basha MAA, Hamed MAG, Refaat R et al (2018) Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI before and early after treatment of multiple myeloma: a prospective comparative study. Jpn J Radiol 36:382–393
doi: 10.1007/s11604-018-0738-z
Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero S et al (2016) Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia 30:1446–1448
doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.338
Sachpekidis C, Mosebach J, Freitag MT et al (2015) Application of (18)F-FDG PET and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in multiple myeloma: comparison of functional imaging modalities. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 5:479–492
pubmed: 26550539
pmcid: 4620175
Hillengass J, Weber MA, Kilk K et al (2014) Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia 28:174–178
doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.244
Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TLY et al (2009) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 114:2068–2076
doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280
Ho C, Chen S, Leung YL et al (2014) 11C-acetate PET/CT for metabolic characterization of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 55:749–752
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.113.131169
Lin C, Ho C-L, Ng S-H et al (2014) (11)C-acetate as a new biomarker for PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma: initial staging and postinduction response assessment. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:41–49
doi: 10.1007/s00259-013-2520-x
Song M-K, Chung J-S, Lee J-J et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging pattern of bone marrow involvement as a new predictive parameter of disease progression in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol 165:777–785
doi: 10.1111/bjh.12820
Hillengass J, Bäuerle T, Bartl R et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging for non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of bone marrow infiltration in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease: a comparative study with histology. Br J Haematol 153:721–728
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08658.x
Mayerhoefer ME, Prosch H, Beer L et al (2020) PET/MRI versus PET/CT in oncology: a prospective single-center study of 330 examinations focusing on implications for patient management and cost considerations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47:51–60
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04452-y
Morsing A, Hildebrandt MG, Vilstrup MH et al (2019) Hybrid PET/MRI in major cancers: a scoping review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:2138–2151
doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04402-8