| Literature DB >> 31061633 |
Jarosław Czyż1, Bogdan Małkowski2, Artur Jurczyszyn3, Norbert Grząśko4, Rita Łopatto2, Monika Olejniczak5, Adriana Czyż1, Anna Jachalska6.
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of "18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine (18F-FET) PET/CT tracer in multiple myeloma.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET/CT; 18F-FET; multiple myeloma
Year: 2019 PMID: 31061633 PMCID: PMC6500394 DOI: 10.5114/wo.2019.83342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contemp Oncol (Pozn) ISSN: 1428-2526
Clinical characteristic of the analysed patients
| Number of patient | Sex | Age | Previous treatment | Disease status | Bone disease assessment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of lesions on FET | SUVmax value (range) | Number of lesions on CT | |||||
| 1 | M | 62 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 5 |
| 2 | F | 44 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 4 | 3.4 (2.7–3.9) | 42 |
| 3 | M | 55 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 1 | 4.3 | 52 |
| 4 | M | 75 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 8 | 3.1 (2.1–3.7) | 48 |
| 5 | F | 58 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 0 |
| 6 | F | 73 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 5 | 3.7 (3.5–3.9) | 13 |
| 7 | M | 68 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 4 | 6.2 (4.5–7.6) | 31 |
| 8 | F | 60 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 2 | 3.3 (2.6–4.2) | 8 |
| 9 | M | 62 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 1 | 3.0 | 1 |
| 10 | M | 64 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 5 | 5.1 (2.5–8.7) | 58 |
| 11 | M | 55 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 3 | 2.4 (2.2–2.6) | 5 |
| 12 | F | 55 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 2 |
| 13 | M | 63 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 61 |
| 14 | F | 57 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 1 |
| 15 | M | 79 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 34 |
| 16 | M | 41 | No | Active, not treated | 3 | 4.4 (3.4 5.3) | 3 |
| 17 | F | 73 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 0 | – | 1 |
| 18 | F | 52 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 2 | 3.3 (3.2–3.3) | 3 |
| 19 | F | 64 | No | Active, not treated | 2 | 5.7 (4.9–6.5) | 2 |
| 20 | F | 50 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 2 | 1.9 (1.8–1.9) | 8 |
| 21 | M | 56 | No | Active, not treated | 22 | 4.9 (2.6–8.2) | 22 |
| 22 | M | 61 | No | Active, not treated | 6 | 3.2 (2.6–8.2) | 6 |
| 23 | F | 71 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 0 |
| 24 | M | 54 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 7 | 2.4 (2.2–3.0) | 11 |
| 25 | M | 64 | No | Active, not treated | 3 | 3.9 (2.6–5.2) | 3 |
| 26 | F | 79 | No | Active, not treated | 18 | 3.4 (2.9–4.4) | 9 |
| 27 | M | 75 | Yes | VGPR | 0 | – | 68 |
| 28 | M | 43 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 1 | 3.6 | 0 |
| 29 | F | 78 | No | Active, not treated | 28 | 3.5 (3.1–3.7) | 18 |
| 30 | F | 63 | No | Active, not treated | 1 | 4.1 | 1 |
| 31 | F | 59 | Yes | Active, relapsed | 1 | 2.90 | 1 |
| 32 | F | 52 | Yes | CR | 0 | – | 1 |
FET – fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine, CT – computed tomography, VGPR – very good partial remission, CR – complete remission
SUV value of the affected area and the background in the analysed group of patients
| Patients | Background | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patient | Number of bone lesions in FET | SUVmax value (range) | Brain | Spleen | Spine Th10 | Spine L4 | Musculus gluteus |
| 1 | 0 | – | Max 1.3; | Max 2.3; | Max 3.1; | Max 2.8; | Max 1.6; |
| 2 | 4 | 3.4 (2.7–3.9) | Max 1.2; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.5; | Max 1.6; |
| 3 | 1 | 4.3 | Max 0.8; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.2; | Max 1.7; | Max 1.8; |
| 4 | 8 | 3.1 (2.1–3.7) | Max 0.8; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.9; |
| 5 | 0 | – | Max 1.3; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.6; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.7; |
| 6 | 5 | 3.7 (3.5–3.9) | Max 1.2; | Max 3.0; | Max 3.3; | Max 2.2; | Max 2.3; |
| 7 | 4 | 6.2 (4.5–7.6) | Max 1.3; | Max 3.4; | Max 3.7; | Max 4.9; | Max 2.2; |
| 8 | 2 | 3.3 (2.6–4.2) | Max 1.5; | Max 2.1; | Max 1.9; | Max 1.3; | Max 2.0; |
| 9 | 1 | 3.0 | Max 1.1; | Max 2.3; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.7; |
| 10 | 5 | 5.1 (2.5–8.7) | Max 1.0; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.2; | Max 1.2; | Max 2.1; |
| 11 | 3 | 2.4 (2.2–2.6) | Max 1.5; | Max 2.6; | Max 1.8; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.0; |
| 12 | 0 | – | Max 0.8; | Max 2.0; | Max 2.1; | Max 1.4; | Max 1.4; |
| 13 | 0 | – | Max 0.6; | Max 1.9; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.3; | Max 1.4; |
| 14 | 0 | – | Max 1.0; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.5; | Max 2.2; |
| 15 | 0 | – | Max 1.1; | Max 2.5; | Max 1.9; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.8; |
| 16 | 3 | 4.4 (3.4–5.3) | Max 0.8; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.1; | Max 1.4; |
| 17 | 0 | – | Max 1.2; | Max 2.2; | Max 1.6; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.8; |
| 18 | 2 | 3.3 (3.2–3.3) | Max 1.3; | Max 2.6; | Max 1.6; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.9; |
| 19 | 2 | 5.7 (4.9–6.5) | Max 1.0; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.3; | Max 1.1; | Max 1.5; |
| 20 | 2 | 1.9 (1.8–1.9) | Max 1.4; | Max 2.4; | Max 1.6; | Max 1.2; | Max 1.6; |
| 21 | 22 | 4.9 (2.6–8.2) | Max 1.2; | Max 1.7; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.3; | Max 1.5; |
| 22 | 6 | 3.2 (2.6–8.2) | Max 1.0; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.7; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.5; |
| 23 | 0 | – | Max 1.4; | Max 2.4; | Max 1.6; | Max 2.3; | Max 2.0; |
| 24 | 7 | 2.4 (2.2–3.0) | Max 1.0; | Max 2.2; | Max 1.7; | Max 1.3; | Max 1.7; |
| 25 | 3 | 3.9 (2.6–5.2) | Max 1.0; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.8; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.7; |
| 26 | 18 | 3.4 (2.9–4.4) | Max 1.3; | Max 2.5; | Max 3.3; | Max 3.5; | Max 2.3; |
| 27 | 0 | – | Max 0.9; | Max 2.1; | Max 2.2 | Max 1.2; | Max 1.8; |
| 28 | 1 | 3.6 | Max 1.0; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.6; | Max 1.7; |
| 29 | 28 | 3.5 (3.1–3.7) | Max 1.1; | Max 2.7; | Max 3.7; | Max 3.3; | Max 1.6; |
| 30 | 1 | 4.1 | Max 1.2; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.5; | Max 2.3; | Max 1.9; |
| 31 | 1 | 2.90 | Max 1.1; | Max 2.0; | Max 1.2; | Max 1.5; | Max 1.8; |
| 32 | 0 | – | Max 1.2; | Max 2.4; | Max 1.6; | Max 1.8; | Max 1.8; |
Fig. 1Patient no. 12, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma before the treatment. A) Computed tomography – lytic lesion localised in the sternum. B) The same lesion on 18F-FET PET/CT fusion image with high FET uptake (converted to black and white). C) Computed tomography – lytic lesion localised in the right iliac crest. D) 18F-FET PET/CT fusion image with high FET uptake in iliac crest
Fig. 3Patient no. 21. Myeloma-related lesions before and after the treatment. MIP images of the FET uptake in the patient body. A) Multiple FET lesions localised in the skeleton of the pathological uptake of FET. B) MIP image after chemotherapy. Complete disappearance of pathological FET uptake may suggest metabolic response to the treatment
Fig. 4Patient no. 32. A) Solitary myeloma lesion suspected in the right palatine tonsil, positive in FDG PET/CT, showing high uptake SUVmax 18.77. B) Negative FET PET/CT result showing no tracer uptake in the right tonsil. No subsequent clinical progression of myeloma was observed on further follow-up