Literature DB >> 19304704

Whole-Body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity.

Conor P Shortt1, Tadhg G Gleeson, Karen A Breen, John McHugh, Martin J O'Connell, Peter J O'Gorman, Stephen J Eustace.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare FDG PET; whole-body MRI; and the reference standard, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, to determine the best imaging technique for assessment of disease activity in multiple myeloma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (13 women, 11 men; mean age, 67.1 years; range, 44-83 years) with bone marrow biopsy-proven multiple myeloma were included in the study. All patients underwent PET/CT and whole-body MRI within 10 days of each other. Eight patients underwent more than one follow-up PET/CT and whole-body MRI examination, for a total of 34 pairs of images. Activity was defined as lesions with a maximum standardized uptake value greater than 2.5 at PET and as evidence of marrow packing at whole-body MRI. PET and whole-body MRI results were correlated with findings at bone marrow aspiration biopsy.
RESULTS: PET had a sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 75%, positive predictive value of 81%, and negative predictive value of 50% (p = 0.08). Whole-body MRI had a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 83%, positive predictive value of 88%, and negative predictive value of 59% (p = 0.01). In 62% of cases, PET and whole-body MRI findings were concordant. When PET and whole-body MRI findings were concordant and positive, no false-positive results were found, yielding a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100% (p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: Whole-body MRI performed better than PET in the assessment of disease activity, having a higher sensitivity and specificity. The positive predictive value of whole-body MRI in the assessment of active disease was high at 88%. When used in combination and with concordant findings, PET and whole-body MRI were found to have a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%, which may be of value to clinicians assessing the effectiveness of aggressive and expensive treatment regimens.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19304704     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1633

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


  43 in total

1.  Imaging: Seeing is believing.

Authors:  Cassandra Willyard
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  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

3.  Whole-body MRI and PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients during staging and after treatment: personal experience in a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lucio Cascini; Carmela Falcone; Domenico Console; Antonino Restuccia; Marco Rossi; Antonello Parlati; Oscar Tamburrini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 4.  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

5.  (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 6.  Imaging of multiple myeloma: Current concepts.

Authors:  Thorsten Derlin; Peter Bannas
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-07-18

Review 7.  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

8.  [Focal lesions in whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma : Quantification of tumor mass and correlation with disease-related parameters and prognosis].

Authors:  S C Brandelik; J Krzykalla; T Hielscher; J Hillengass; J K Kloth; H U Kauczor; M A Weber
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  Comparative diagnostic performance of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT versus whole-body MRI for determination of remission status in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation.

Authors:  Thorsten Derlin; Kersten Peldschus; Silvia Münster; Peter Bannas; Jochen Herrmann; Thomas Stübig; Christian R Habermann; Gerhard Adam; Nicolaus Kröger; Christoph Weber
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-29       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.