Literature DB >> 18356461

Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma.

Andrea Baur-Melnyk1, Sonja Buhmann, Christoph Becker, Stefan Oswald Schoenberg, Nicola Lang, Reiner Bartl, Maximilian Ferdinand Reiser.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare the detection rate of bone manifestations of multiple myeloma in whole-body MRI compared with MDCT and to assess accuracy in staging. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with histologically confirmed myeloma were prospectively examined with a whole-body MDCT protocol and whole-body MRI on a 1.5-T system. The MRI protocol consisted of T1-weighted spin-echo and STIR sequences. For data analysis, the entire skeleton was divided into 61 regions per patient. Image evaluation was performed in a consensus reading by two radiologists blinded to the patients' history, with separate evaluation of each technique. The patients were staged by MRI and MDCT data separately according to the Durie and Salmon PLUS staging system.
RESULTS: On MRI, 15 patients showed no involvement. In 26 patients, 975 regions were affected: 21 patients were stage I, two were stage II, and 18 were stage III. On MDCT, 19 patients showed no involvement. In 22 patients, 462 regions were affected. For the detection rate, MRI was statistically superior to MDCT (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon's signed rank test). According to MDCT, 25 patients were stage I, seven were stage II, and nine were stage III. In 21 patients with involvement detected on both methods, MRI showed more extensive disease than MDCT. Eleven patients were understaged with MDCT compared with MRI, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001, chi-square test).
CONCLUSION: Whole-body MDCT leads to a significantly lower detection rate and staging in patients with multiple myeloma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18356461     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  62 in total

1.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in oncology.

Authors:  Concepción González Hernando; Laura Esteban; Teresa Cañas; Enrique Van den Brule; Miguel Pastrana
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 2.  The uses and limitations of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Gerwin Schmidt; Dietmar Dinter; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 5.594

Review 3.  The role of positron emission tomography-computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow up of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Jo Caers; Nadia Withofs; Jens Hillengass; Paolo Simoni; Elena Zamagni; Roland Hustinx; Yves Beguin
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 9.941

4.  Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.

Authors:  J Hillengass; M-A Weber; K Kilk; K Listl; B Wagner-Gund; M Hillengass; T Hielscher; A Farid; K Neben; S Delorme; O Landgren; H Goldschmidt
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2013-08-20       Impact factor: 11.528

5.  Value of low-dose whole-body CT in the management of patients with multiple myeloma and precursor states.

Authors:  F Joseph Simeone; Joel P Harvey; Andrew J Yee; Elizabeth K O'Donnell; Noopur S Raje; Martin Torriani; Miriam A Bredella
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  (11)C-acetate as a new biomarker for PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma: initial staging and postinduction response assessment.

Authors:  Chieh Lin; Chi-Lai Ho; Shu-Hang Ng; Po-Nan Wang; Yenlin Huang; Yu-Chun Lin; Tzung-Chih Tang; Shu-Fan Tsai; Alain Rahmouni; Tzu-Chen Yen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 7.  [Management of osseous complications in multiple myeloma].

Authors:  K Zarghooni; S Hopf; P Eysel
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 8.  [Indications for magnetic resonance imaging in Internal Medicine. When do we really need this technology?].

Authors:  A G Schreyer; K Debl; H Herfarth
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 9.  Imaging in myeloma with focus on advanced imaging techniques.

Authors:  Tara Barwick; Laure Bretsztajn; Kathryn Wallitt; Dimitri Amiras; Andrea Rockall; Christina Messiou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Susanne Lütje; Jacky W J de Rooy; Sandra Croockewit; Emmeline Koedam; Wim J G Oyen; Reinier A Raymakers
Journal:  Ann Hematol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.673

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.