So-Yeon Lee1, Hyun-Jung Kim2, Yu Ri Shin3, Hee-Jin Park1, Yun-Gyoo Lee4, Suk Joong Oh4. 1. Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Hjk3870@daum.net. 3. Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: MRI of bone marrow of the axial skeleton is recommended for evaluation of multiple myeloma. The impact of bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI for determining progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is not yet clear. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of research on the prognostic significance of MRI patterns for OS and PFS using a random effects model. Databases searched without language restriction were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (January 1976 to April 2014). Manual searches were also conducted. RESULTS: Of 10,953 citations identified in the original search, 10 cohort studies for a total of 2015 patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 10 included studies are from three research groups. Pooled hazard ratios were 1.80 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.32-2.46; P < 0.001) for OS and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.65-3.20; P < 0.001) for PFS for focal lesions on MRI; and 1.70 (95 % CI 1.30-2.21; P < 0.001) for OS and 1.74 (95 % CI 1.07-2.85; P = 0.03) for PFS for diffuse infiltration on MRI. No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between focal lesions and diffuse infiltration and poor prognosis in this population. KEY POINTS: • MRI findings of multiple myeloma include normal, focal, variegated and diffuse infiltration • Focal lesions and diffuse infiltration on MRI were poor prognostic factors • Bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI can help physicians assess prognosis.
OBJECTIVES: MRI of bone marrow of the axial skeleton is recommended for evaluation of multiple myeloma. The impact of bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI for determining progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is not yet clear. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of research on the prognostic significance of MRI patterns for OS and PFS using a random effects model. Databases searched without language restriction were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (January 1976 to April 2014). Manual searches were also conducted. RESULTS: Of 10,953 citations identified in the original search, 10 cohort studies for a total of 2015 patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 10 included studies are from three research groups. Pooled hazard ratios were 1.80 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.32-2.46; P < 0.001) for OS and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.65-3.20; P < 0.001) for PFS for focal lesions on MRI; and 1.70 (95 % CI 1.30-2.21; P < 0.001) for OS and 1.74 (95 % CI 1.07-2.85; P = 0.03) for PFS for diffuse infiltration on MRI. No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between focal lesions and diffuse infiltration and poor prognosis in this population. KEY POINTS: • MRI findings of multiple myeloma include normal, focal, variegated and diffuse infiltration • Focal lesions and diffuse infiltration on MRI were poor prognostic factors • Bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI can help physicians assess prognosis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone marrow; MRI; Meta-analysis; Multiple myeloma; Prognosis
Authors: Ralf Bender; Catey Bunce; Mike Clarke; Simon Gates; Stefan Lange; Nathan L Pace; Kristian Thorlund Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: L A Moulopoulos; D Gika; A Anagnostopoulos; K Delasalle; D Weber; R Alexanian; M A Dimopoulos Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Philip R Greipp; Jesus San Miguel; Brian G M Durie; John J Crowley; Bart Barlogie; Joan Bladé; Mario Boccadoro; J Anthony Child; Herve Avet-Loiseau; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Robert A Kyle; Juan J Lahuerta; Heinz Ludwig; Gareth Morgan; Raymond Powles; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Chaim Shustik; Pieter Sonneveld; Patrizia Tosi; Ingemar Turesson; Jan Westin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Deep K Hathi; John A Engelbach; Jens Hillengass; Deborah Veis; Samuel Achilefu; Joel R Garbow; Monica Shokeen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: M Alabousi; A Alabousi; T A McGrath; K D Cobey; B Budhram; R A Frank; F Nguyen; J P Salameh; A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; M D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yang Li; Yang Liu; Ping Yin; Chuanxi Hao; Chao Sun; Lei Chen; Sicong Wang; Nan Hong Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Yang Li; Ping Yin; Yang Liu; Chuanxi Hao; Lei Chen; Chao Sun; Sicong Wang; Nan Hong Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 3.246