J Hillengass1, S Delorme. 1. Abteilung für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Rheumatologie, Medizinische Universitätsklinik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Jens.Hillengass@med.uni-heidelberg.de
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disease serves to detect end organ damage, i.e., osteoporosis or bone destruction. Diffuse or circumscribed bone marrow infiltration without damage to mineralized bone is so far not regarded as end organ damage. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Skeletal plain x-ray film survey to detect bone destruction, osteoporosis or fractures. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Whole body low-dose computed tomography (CT) and whole body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allow a more sensitive assessment of both mineralized bone and bone marrow, with greater patient comfort and in the case of MRI without ionizing radiation. PERFORMANCE: According to the literature, cross-sectional imaging is clearly superior to skeletal surveys and MRI is more sensitive than CT. Every locally destructive lesion will be detectable with MRI but for assessing the damage to mineralized bone CT is indispensible. The sensitivities of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and MRI are comparable. ACHIEVEMENTS: If available whole body MRI and whole body low dose CT should replace conventional skeletal surveys. This has already been implemented in several centers in Germany. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: For the initial diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma or symptomatic multiple myeloma, a whole-body MRI and a whole body low-dose CT should be performed. For MGUS and asymptomatic myeloma, whole body MRI only should be performed for follow-up until detection of first bone destruction. Patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma and known bone destruction will usually have whole body low-dose CT, supplemented by MRI studies where clinically required.
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disease serves to detect end organ damage, i.e., osteoporosis or bone destruction. Diffuse or circumscribed bone marrow infiltration without damage to mineralized bone is so far not regarded as end organ damage. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Skeletal plain x-ray film survey to detect bone destruction, osteoporosis or fractures. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Whole body low-dose computed tomography (CT) and whole body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allow a more sensitive assessment of both mineralized bone and bone marrow, with greater patient comfort and in the case of MRI without ionizing radiation. PERFORMANCE: According to the literature, cross-sectional imaging is clearly superior to skeletal surveys and MRI is more sensitive than CT. Every locally destructive lesion will be detectable with MRI but for assessing the damage to mineralized bone CT is indispensible. The sensitivities of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and MRI are comparable. ACHIEVEMENTS: If available whole body MRI and whole body low dose CT should replace conventional skeletal surveys. This has already been implemented in several centers in Germany. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: For the initial diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma or symptomatic multiple myeloma, a whole-body MRI and a whole body low-dose CT should be performed. For MGUS and asymptomatic myeloma, whole body MRI only should be performed for follow-up until detection of first bone destruction. Patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma and known bone destruction will usually have whole body low-dose CT, supplemented by MRI studies where clinically required.
Authors: Angela Dispenzieri; S Vincent Rajkumar; Morie A Gertz; Rafael Fonseca; Martha Q Lacy; P Leif Bergsagel; Robert A Kyle; Philip R Greipp; Thomas E Witzig; Craig B Reeder; John A Lust; Stephen J Russell; Suzanne R Hayman; Vivek Roy; Shaji Kumar; Steven R Zeldenrust; Robert J Dalton; A Keith Stewart Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Marius Horger; Lothar Kanz; Barbara Denecke; Reinhard Vonthein; Philippe Pereira; Claus D Claussen; Christoph Driessen Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ola Landgren; Robert A Kyle; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Jerry A Katzmann; Neil E Caporaso; Richard B Hayes; Angela Dispenzieri; Shaji Kumar; Raynell J Clark; Dalsu Baris; Robert Hoover; S Vincent Rajkumar Journal: Blood Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Twyla B Bartel; Jeff Haessler; Tracy L Y Brown; John D Shaughnessy; Frits van Rhee; Elias Anaissie; Terri Alpe; Edgardo Angtuaco; Ronald Walker; Joshua Epstein; John Crowley; Bart Barlogie Journal: Blood Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 22.113
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
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
Authors: T G Gleeson; J Moriarty; C P Shortt; J P Gleeson; P Fitzpatrick; B Byrne; J McHugh; M O'Connell; P O'Gorman; S J Eustace Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jonathan P GroΔ; Johanna Nattenmüller; Stefan Hemmer; Diana Tichy; Julia Krzykalla; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Uta Bertsch; Stefan Delorme; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jens Hillengass; Maximilian Merz Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-07-25