M Horger1, J Fritz2, W M Thaiss1, H Ditt3, K Weisel4, M Haap5, Christopher Kloth6. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, 601 N. Caroline Street, JHOC 3142, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 3. Siemens AG Healthcare, Sector Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Siemensstr. 1, D-91301, Forchheim, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine II, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Str. 8, D-72076, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Department of Internal Medicine IV, Eberhard-Karls-University Tübingen, D-72076, Tübingen, , Otfried-Müller-Str. 8, Germany. 6. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Alle 23, 89081, ULM, Germany. christopher.kloth@uniklinik-ulm.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare qualitative and quantitative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for longitudinal disease monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) of the axial skeleton. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 31 consecutive patients (17 m; mean age 59.20 ± 8.08 years) with MM, who underwent all baseline (n = 31) and at least one or more (n = 47) follow-up examinations consisting of multi-parametric non-enhanced whole-body MRI (WBMRI) and non-enhanced whole-body reduced-dose thin-section MDCT (NEWBMDCT) between 06/2013 and 09/2016. We classified response according to qualitative CT criteria into progression (PD), stable(SD), partial/very good partial (PR/VGPR) and complete response(CR), grouping the latter three together for statistical analysis because CT cannot reliably assess PR and CR. Qualitative MR-response criteria were defined and grouped similarly to CT using longitudinal quantification of signal-intensity changes on T1w/STIR/ T2*w and calculating ADC-values. Standard of reference was the hematological laboratory (M-gradient). RESULTS: Hematological response categories were CR (14/47, 29.7%), PR (2/47, 4.2%), SD (16/47, 34.0%) and PD (15/47, 29.9%). Qualitative-CT-evaluation showed PD in 12/47 (25.5%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 35/47 (74.5%) cases. These results were confirmed by quantitative-CT in all focal lytic lesions (p < 0.001). Quantitative-CT at sites with diffuse bone involvement showed significant increase of maximum bone attenuation (p < 0.001*) and significant decrease of minimal bone (p < 0.002*) in the SD/PR/VGPR/CR group. Qualitative MRI showed PD in 14/47 (29.7%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 33/47 (70.3%). Quantitative MRI diagnosis showed a statistically significant decrease in signal intensity on short tau inversion recovery sequences (STIR) in bone marrow in patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement achieving SD/PR/VGPR/CR (p < 0.001*). CONCLUSION: Imaging response monitoring using MRI is superior to CT only if qualitative parameters are used, whereas there was no definite benefit from using quantitative parameters with either CT or MRI.
PURPOSE: To compare qualitative and quantitative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for longitudinal disease monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) of the axial skeleton. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 31 consecutive patients (17 m; mean age 59.20 ± 8.08 years) with MM, who underwent all baseline (n = 31) and at least one or more (n = 47) follow-up examinations consisting of multi-parametric non-enhanced whole-body MRI (WBMRI) and non-enhanced whole-body reduced-dose thin-section MDCT (NEWBMDCT) between 06/2013 and 09/2016. We classified response according to qualitative CT criteria into progression (PD), stable(SD), partial/very good partial (PR/VGPR) and complete response(CR), grouping the latter three together for statistical analysis because CT cannot reliably assess PR and CR. Qualitative MR-response criteria were defined and grouped similarly to CT using longitudinal quantification of signal-intensity changes on T1w/STIR/ T2*w and calculating ADC-values. Standard of reference was the hematological laboratory (M-gradient). RESULTS: Hematological response categories were CR (14/47, 29.7%), PR (2/47, 4.2%), SD (16/47, 34.0%) and PD (15/47, 29.9%). Qualitative-CT-evaluation showed PD in 12/47 (25.5%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 35/47 (74.5%) cases. These results were confirmed by quantitative-CT in all focal lytic lesions (p < 0.001). Quantitative-CT at sites with diffuse bone involvement showed significant increase of maximum bone attenuation (p < 0.001*) and significant decrease of minimal bone (p < 0.002*) in the SD/PR/VGPR/CR group. Qualitative MRI showed PD in 14/47 (29.7%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 33/47 (70.3%). Quantitative MRI diagnosis showed a statistically significant decrease in signal intensity on short tau inversion recovery sequences (STIR) in bone marrow in patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement achieving SD/PR/VGPR/CR (p < 0.001*). CONCLUSION: Imaging response monitoring using MRI is superior to CT only if qualitative parameters are used, whereas there was no definite benefit from using quantitative parameters with either CT or MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT; MRI; Multiple myeloma; Qualitative and quantitative analysis
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: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Jens Hillengass; Saad Usmani; Elena Zamagni; Suzanne Lentzsch; Faith E Davies; Noopur Raje; Orhan Sezer; Sonja Zweegman; Jatin Shah; Ashraf Badros; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Philippe Moreau; Chor-Sang Chim; Juan José Lahuerta; Jian Hou; Artur Jurczyszyn; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Pieter Sonneveld; Antonio Palumbo; Heinz Ludwig; Michele Cavo; Bart Barlogie; Kenneth Anderson; G David Roodman; S Vincent Rajkumar; Brian G M Durie; Evangelos Terpos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
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: A Rahmouni; M Divine; D Mathieu; M Golli; C Haioun; T Dao; M C Anglade; F Reyes; N Vasile Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Christos Sachpekidis; Jennifer Mosebach; Martin T Freitag; Thomas Wilhelm; Elias K Mai; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Uwe Haberkorn; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Stefan Delorme; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-12
Authors: Francis I Baffour; Katrina N Glazebrook; Jonathan M Morris; Gregory J Michalak; Joel G Fletcher; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Ho Young Park; Kyung Won Kim; Min A Yoon; Min Hee Lee; Eun Jin Chae; Jeong Hyun Lee; Hye Won Chung; Dok Hyun Yoon Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Frederic E Lecouvet; Marie-Christiane Vekemans; Thomas Van Den Berghe; Koenraad Verstraete; Thomas Kirchgesner; Souad Acid; Jacques Malghem; Joris Wuts; Jens Hillengass; Vincent Vandecaveye; François Jamar; Olivier Gheysens; Bruno C Vande Berg Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2021-08-07 Impact factor: 2.199