Literature DB >> 23801394

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

Giuseppe Lucio Cascini1, Carmela Falcone, Domenico Console, Antonino Restuccia, Marco Rossi, Antonello Parlati, Oscar Tamburrini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Diagnostic imaging plays a pivotal role in staging and prognostic assessment of multiple myeloma (MM) as well as planning and monitoring treatment. The aim of our study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of wholebody magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in MM patients studied before and after treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We considered 22 consecutive patients (10 males, 12 females; age range, 48-83 years) with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM group), and the same 22 patients underwent at least one re-assessment after treatment (previously treated MM, PTMM group). WBMRI and PET/CT were performed within days from each other in both the NDMM (22 studies) and PTMM (29 studies) group. The imaging findings were compared to the results of bone marrow aspiration.
RESULTS: PET/CT was positive in 18/22 NDMM patients, whereas WB-MRI correctly identified 100% of patients. Of 20 responder patients in the PTMM group, 16 were negative at PET/CT and 12/20 at MRI. By contrast, of the nine nonresponder patients, MRI correctly detected active disease in all cases, and PET only in seven.
CONCLUSIONS: WB-MRI proved superior to PET/CT in detecting MM, especially in diffuse disease. PET/CT appears to be more sensitive in the assessment of MM after treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23801394     DOI: 10.1007/s11547-013-0946-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Med        ISSN: 0033-8362            Impact factor:   3.469


  49 in total

1.  (11)C-Methionine PET/CT for multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Masatoshi Nishizawa; Yuji Nakamoto; Tsuyoshi Suga; Toshiyuki Kitano; Takayuki Ishikawa; Kouhei Yamashita
Journal:  Int J Hematol       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 2.490

Review 2.  Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone disease.

Authors:  Evangelos Terpos; Lia A Moulopoulos; Meletios A Dimopoulos
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3.

Authors:  Meletios Dimopoulos; Robert Kyle; Jean-Paul Fermand; S Vincent Rajkumar; Jesus San Miguel; Asher Chanan-Khan; Heinz Ludwig; Douglas Joshua; Jayesh Mehta; Morie Gertz; Hervé Avet-Loiseau; Meral Beksaç; Kenneth C Anderson; Philippe Moreau; Seema Singhal; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Mario Boccadoro; Shaji Kumar; Sergio Giralt; Nikhil C Munshi; Sundar Jagannath
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2011-02-03       Impact factor: 22.113

4.  Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT.

Authors:  Christopher J Hanrahan; Carl R Christensen; Julia R Crim
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma.

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

Review 6.  Imaging in multiple myeloma.

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

7.  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 8.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of bone marrow: current status.

Authors:  Andrea Baur; Olaf Dietrich; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI).

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

10.  Multiple myeloma: a review of imaging features and radiological techniques.

Authors:  C F Healy; J G Murray; S J Eustace; J Madewell; P J O'Gorman; P O'Sullivan
Journal:  Bone Marrow Res       Date:  2011-08-08
View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Diagnostic Advances in Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Kevin Barley; Ajai Chari
Journal:  Curr Hematol Malig Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.952

2.  MRI versus 18F-FDG-PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement in multiple myeloma: diagnostic performance and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Frédéric E Lecouvet; Dimitar Boyadzhiev; Laurence Collette; Maude Berckmans; Nicolas Michoux; Perrine Triqueneaux; Vassiliki Pasoglou; François Jamar; Marie-Christiane Vekemans
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI before and early after treatment of multiple myeloma: a prospective comparative study.

Authors:  Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha; Maged Abdel Gelil Hamed; Rania Refaat; Mohamad Zakarya AlAzzazy; Manar A Bessar; Elshaimaa Mohamed Mohamed; Ayman F Ahmed; Heba Fathy Tantawy; Khaled Mohamed Altaher; Ahmed Ali Obaya; Amira Hamed Mohamed Afifi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 4.  Minimal residual disease analysis in myeloma - when, why and where.

Authors:  Uday Yanamandra; Shaji K Kumar
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2017-10-11

5.  Diagnostic performance of 18 F-FDG-PET/CT compared to standard skeletal survey for detecting bone destruction in smouldering multiple myeloma: time to move forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth Hill; Esther Mena; Candis Morrison; Alexander Dew; Peter Choyke; Liza Lindenberg; Dickran Kazandjian
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 8.615

6.  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

Review 7.  Comparison of [18F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Kota Yokoyama; Junichi Tsuchiya; Ukihide Tateishi
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-15

8.  Whole Body Low Dose Computed Tomography (WBLDCT) Can Be Comparable to Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging (WBMRI) in the Assessment of Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Davide Ippolito; Teresa Giandola; Cesare Maino; Davide Gandola; Maria Ragusi; Pietro Andrea Bonaffini; Sandro Sironi
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-11

9.  Comparison of the diagnostic performance and impact on management of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Olwen Westerland; Ashik Amlani; Christian Kelly-Morland; Michal Fraczek; Katherine Bailey; Mary Gleeson; Inas El-Najjar; Matthew Streetly; Paul Bassett; Gary J R Cook; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  National survey of imaging practice for suspected or confirmed plasma cell malignancies.

Authors:  Olwen Amy Westerland; Guy Pratt; Majid Kazmi; Inas El-Najjar; Matthew Streetly; Kwee Yong; Monica Morris; Rakesh Mehan; Martin Sambrook; Margaret Hall-Craggs; David Silver; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.