Literature DB >> 20574630

Comparison of a new whole-body continuous-table-movement protocol versus a standard whole-body MR protocol for the assessment of multiple myeloma.

S Weckbach1, H J Michaely, A Stemmer, S O Schoenberg, D J Dinter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a whole body (WB) continuous-table-movement (CTM) MR protocol for the assessment of multiple myeloma (MM) in comparison to a step-by-step WB protocol.
METHODS: Eighteen patients with MM were examined at 1.5T using a WB CTM protocol (axial T2-w fs BLADE, T1-w GRE sequence) and a step-by-step WB protocol including coronal/sagittal T1-w SE and STIR sequences as reference. Protocol time was assessed. Image quality, artefacts, liver/spleen assessability, and the ability to depict bone marrow lesions less than or greater than 1 cm as well as diffuse infiltration and soft tissue lesions were rated. Potential changes in the Durie and Salmon Plus stage and the detectability of complications were assessed.
RESULTS: Mean protocol time was 6:38 min (CTM) compared to 24:32 min (standard). Image quality was comparable. Artefacts were more prominent using the CTM protocol (P = 0.0039). Organ assessability was better using the CTM protocol (P < 0.001). Depiction of bone marrow and soft tissue lesions was identical without a staging shift. Vertebral fractures were not detected using the CTM protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: The new protocol allows a higher patient throughput and facilitates the depiction of extramedullary lesions. However, as long as vertebral fractures are not detectable, the protocol cannot be safely used for clinical routine without the acquisition of an additional sagittal sequence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20574630     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1865-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  37 in total

1.  Dual-velocity continuously moving table acquisition for contrast-enhanced peripheral magnetic resonance angiography.

Authors:  David G Kruger; Stephen J Riederer; Jason A Polzin; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Houchun H Hu; James F Glockner
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 2.  Multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Recovery of phase inconsistencies in continuously moving table extended field of view magnetic resonance imaging acquisitions.

Authors:  David G Kruger; Stephen J Riederer; Phillip J Rossman; Petrice M Mostardi; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Houchun H Hu
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 4.  Total-body MR-imaging in oncology.

Authors:  Juergen F Schaefer; Heinz-Peter W Schlemmer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  2D axial moving table acquisitions with dynamic slice adaptation.

Authors:  Ute Ludwig; Gregor Sommer; Maxim Zaitsev; Nadir Ghanem; Jürgen Hennig; Hans-Peter Fautz
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.668

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

Authors:  Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Sonja Buhmann; Christoph Becker; Stefan Oswald Schoenberg; Nicola Lang; Reiner Bartl; Maximilian Ferdinand Reiser
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Imaging in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Stefan Delorme; Andrea Baur-Melnyk
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-03-09       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: importance of whole-body versus spinal MR imaging.

Authors:  Tobias Bäuerle; Jens Hillengass; Kerstin Fechtner; Christian M Zechmann; Lars Grenacher; Thomas M Moehler; Heiss Christiane; Barbara Wagner-Gund; Kai Neben; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Stefan Delorme
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Robert A Kyle; S Vincent Rajkumar
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2008-03-15       Impact factor: 22.113

10.  MRI in the detection of malignant infiltration of bone marrow.

Authors:  R H Daffner; A R Lupetin; N Dash; Z L Deeb; R J Sefczek; R L Schapiro
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Advanced MRI Techniques for Muscle Imaging.

Authors:  Vivek Kalia; Doris G Leung; Darryl B Sneag; Filippo Del Grande; John A Carrino
Journal:  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 2.  Musculoskeletal imaging: current and future trends.

Authors:  Hassan Douis; Steven L J James; A Mark Davies
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Improving protocols for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: oncological and inflammatory applications.

Authors:  Mareen S Kraus; Ayat A Yousef; Sandra L Cote; Mary-Louise C Greer
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2022-08-19

Review 4.  Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques and non-oncologic indications.

Authors:  Mary-Louise C Greer
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-08-04

5.  The Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Multiple Myeloma Staging according to IMPeTUs: Comparison of the Durie-Salmon Plus and Other Staging Systems.

Authors:  Shengming Deng; Bin Zhang; Yeye Zhou; Xin Xu; Jihui Li; Shibiao Sang; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 3.161

6.  Current oncologic concepts and emerging techniques for imaging of head and neck squamous cell cancer.

Authors:  Maliha Sadick; Stefan O Schoenberg; Karl Hoermann; Haneen Sadick
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-12-20

7.  Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: A multi-reader study.

Authors:  Timothy J P Bray; Saurabh Singh; Arash Latifoltojar; Kannan Rajesparan; Farzana Rahman; Priya Narayanan; Sahar Naaseri; Andre Lopes; Alan Bainbridge; Shonit Punwani; Margaret A Hall-Craggs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.