OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the value of whole-body MRI with FDG-PET for detecting bone marrow involvement in lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 116 patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma prospectively underwent whole-body MRI and blind bone marrow biopsy (BMB) of the posterior iliac crest. Of 116 patients, 80 also underwent FDG-PET. Patient-based sensitivities of whole-body MRI for detecting bone marrow involvement were calculated using BMB as reference standard and compared with FDG-PET in aggressive and indolent lymphomas separately. RESULTS: Sensitivity of whole-body MRI in all lymphomas was 45.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 29.8-62.0 %]. Sensitivity of whole-body MRI in aggressive lymphoma [88.9 % (95 % CI: 54.3-100 %)] was significantly higher (P = 0.0029) than that in indolent lymphoma [23.5 % (95 % CI: 9.1-47.8 %)]. Sensitivity of FDG-PET in aggressive lymphoma [83.3 % (95 % CI: 41.8-98.9 %)] was also significantly higher (P = 0.026) than that in indolent lymphoma [12.5 % (95 % CI: 0-49.2 %)]. There were no significant differences in sensitivity between whole-body MRI and FDG-PET (P = 1.00) CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of whole-body MRI for detecting lymphomatous bone marrow involvement is too low to (partially) replace BMB. Sensitivity of whole-body MRI is significantly higher in aggressive lymphoma than in indolent lymphoma and is equal to FDG-PET in both entities. KEY POINTS: • Bone marrow involvement in lymphoma has prognostic and therapeutic implications. • Blind bone marrow biopsy (BMB) is standard for bone marrow assessment. • Neither whole-body MRI nor FDG-PET can yet replace BMB. • Both techniques have higher sensitivity in aggressive than in indolent lymphoma. • Both imaging techniques are complementary to BMB.
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the value of whole-body MRI with FDG-PET for detecting bone marrow involvement in lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 116 patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma prospectively underwent whole-body MRI and blind bone marrow biopsy (BMB) of the posterior iliac crest. Of 116 patients, 80 also underwent FDG-PET. Patient-based sensitivities of whole-body MRI for detecting bone marrow involvement were calculated using BMB as reference standard and compared with FDG-PET in aggressive and indolent lymphomas separately. RESULTS: Sensitivity of whole-body MRI in all lymphomas was 45.5 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 29.8-62.0 %]. Sensitivity of whole-body MRI in aggressive lymphoma [88.9 % (95 % CI: 54.3-100 %)] was significantly higher (P = 0.0029) than that in indolent lymphoma [23.5 % (95 % CI: 9.1-47.8 %)]. Sensitivity of FDG-PET in aggressive lymphoma [83.3 % (95 % CI: 41.8-98.9 %)] was also significantly higher (P = 0.026) than that in indolent lymphoma [12.5 % (95 % CI: 0-49.2 %)]. There were no significant differences in sensitivity between whole-body MRI and FDG-PET (P = 1.00) CONCLUSION: Sensitivity of whole-body MRI for detecting lymphomatous bone marrow involvement is too low to (partially) replace BMB. Sensitivity of whole-body MRI is significantly higher in aggressive lymphoma than in indolent lymphoma and is equal to FDG-PET in both entities. KEY POINTS: • Bone marrow involvement in lymphoma has prognostic and therapeutic implications. • Blind bone marrow biopsy (BMB) is standard for bone marrow assessment. • Neither whole-body MRI nor FDG-PET can yet replace BMB. • Both techniques have higher sensitivity in aggressive than in indolent lymphoma. • Both imaging techniques are complementary to BMB.
Authors: T A Lister; D Crowther; S B Sutcliffe; E Glatstein; G P Canellos; R C Young; S A Rosenberg; C A Coltman; M Tubiana Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pierre Y Salaun; Thomas Gastinne; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Loïc Campion; Pierre Cambefort; Anne Moreau; Steven Le Gouill; Christian Berthou; Philippe Moreau; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jan Mueller; Stefan Karrasch; Roberto Lorbeer; Tatyana Ivanovska; Andreas Pomschar; Wolfgang G Kunz; Ricarda von Krüchten; Annette Peters; Fabian Bamberg; Holger Schulz; Christopher L Schlett Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hugo J A Adams; Thomas C Kwee; Rob Fijnheer; Stefan V Dubois; Peter E Blase; Rutger A J Nievelstein; John M H de Klerk Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Laura Heacock; Joseph Weissbrot; Roy Raad; Naomi Campbell; Kent P Friedman; Fabio Ponzo; Hersh Chandarana Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Annemieke S Littooij; Thomas C Kwee; Ignasi Barber; Claudio Granata; Malou A Vermoolen; Goya Enríquez; József Zsíros; Shui Yen Soh; Bart de Keizer; Frederik J A Beek; Monique G Hobbelink; Marc B Bierings; Jaap Stoker; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ulrika Asenbaum; Richard Nolz; Georgios Karanikas; Julia Furtner; Ramona Woitek; Anton Staudenherz; Daniela Senn; Markus Raderer; Michael Weber; Ingrid Simonitsch-Klupp; Marius E Mayerhoefer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240