BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of whole body X-ray (WBXR) and (18) F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18) FDG PET) in staging and response assessment of multiple myeloma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies comparing (18) FDG PET with WBXR and/or magnetic resonance imaging in terms of sensitivity for myeloma-related bone disease at staging and during follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 798 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) score, expressed as a percentage of the maximum score, was 61%. In 7 studies (n = 242 patients), concordance assessment between WBXR and (18) FDG PET scan was possible, showing a higher sensitivity of the (18) FDG PET in the detection of myeloma bone lesions in 6 studies. The only study reporting on the prognostic value of (18) FDG PET at staging found that the number of FDG-avid focal lesions was an independent prognostic parameter. In addition, the limited studies on response monitoring showed that normalization of (18) FDG PET during treatment correlated with a superior clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In general, (18) FDG PET has a superior sensitivity for myeloma bone lesions compared with WBXR. Future studies have to validate the additive value of myeloma-related bone disease detected on (18) FDG PET-computed tomography (CT) in predicting outcome. Response monitoring with the use of (18) FDG PET-CT during treatment is promising, allowing more precise prediction of prognosis compared with the standard response monitoring. In view of the expanding treatment options for multiple myeloma, this may provide important information for treatment decisions in the future.
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of whole body X-ray (WBXR) and (18) F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18) FDG PET) in staging and response assessment of multiple myeloma. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies comparing (18) FDG PET with WBXR and/or magnetic resonance imaging in terms of sensitivity for myeloma-related bone disease at staging and during follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 798 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) score, expressed as a percentage of the maximum score, was 61%. In 7 studies (n = 242 patients), concordance assessment between WBXR and (18) FDG PET scan was possible, showing a higher sensitivity of the (18) FDG PET in the detection of myeloma bone lesions in 6 studies. The only study reporting on the prognostic value of (18) FDG PET at staging found that the number of FDG-avid focal lesions was an independent prognostic parameter. In addition, the limited studies on response monitoring showed that normalization of (18) FDG PET during treatment correlated with a superior clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In general, (18) FDG PET has a superior sensitivity for myeloma bone lesions compared with WBXR. Future studies have to validate the additive value of myeloma-related bone disease detected on (18) FDG PET-computed tomography (CT) in predicting outcome. Response monitoring with the use of (18) FDG PET-CT during treatment is promising, allowing more precise prediction of prognosis compared with the standard response monitoring. In view of the expanding treatment options for multiple myeloma, this may provide important information for treatment decisions in the future.
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
Authors: Maja Hinge; Kristian T Andersen; Thomas Lund; Henrik B Jørgensen; Paw C Holdgaard; Tina E Ormstrup; Lone L Østergaard; Torben Plesner Journal: Haematologica Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Deepti Soodgupta; Haiying Zhou; Wissam Beaino; Lan Lu; Michael Rettig; Mark Snee; James Skeath; John F DiPersio; Walter J Akers; Richard Laforest; Carolyn J Anderson; Michael H Tomasson; Monica Shokeen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 10.057