Literature DB >> 31166755

Comparison of Whole-Body DWI and 18F-FDG PET/CT for Detecting Intramedullary and Extramedullary Lesions in Multiple Myeloma.

Jianpu Chen1, Chongjiao Li1, Yueli Tian1, Qing Xiao1, Ming Deng2, Hao Hu2, Bing Wen1, Yong He1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the ability of whole-body (WB) DWI and 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting intramedullary and extramedullary lesions in multiple myeloma. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included 49 patients with multiple myeloma who had undergone WB DWI and PET/CT. Intramedullary lesions for each region were scored by a scoring system using WB DWI and PET/CT separately. Extramedullary lesions seen separately on WB DWI and PET/CT per patient were recorded. Patients with diffuse lesions of the whole spine seen using both modalities were defined as group A, and those with such lesions seen on WB DWI only were defined as group B. The mean scores assigned to intramedullary lesions using the two modalities, the numbers of extramedullary lesions detected by WB DWI and PET/CT, and the mean percentages of plasma cells in the two patient groups were compared. RESULTS. Scores were higher for WB DWI than for PET/CT in all regions of the body (p < 0.05) except the skull, both in patients with a new diagnosis of multiple myeloma and in previously treated patients. Mean (± SD) percentages of plasma cells were significantly higher in group A than group B (50.458% ± 16.036% vs 18.682% ± 15.524%; p = 0.00). The mean number of extramedullary lesions detected by WB DWI was slightly higher than the mean number detected by PET/CT, although there was no statistical difference (4.48 ± 6.70 vs 4.39 ± 6.46 lesions; p = 0.86). CONCLUSION. For detecting intramedullary lesions, WB DWI is more sensitive than PET/CT in all regions except the skull, both in patients with a new diagnosis and previously treated patients and especially in patients with a low percentage of plasma cells. For detecting extramedullary lesions, WB DWI has sensitivity equivalent to that of PET/CT. The use of both modalities may offer complementary information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DWI; PET/CT; extramedullary lesion; multiple myeloma

Year:  2019        PMID: 31166755     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.20989

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  10 in total

1.  Role of whole-body MRI for treatment response assessment in multiple myeloma: comparison between clinical response and imaging response.

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

2.  Imaging Features of Multiple Myeloma Extramedullary Lesions in the Liver with 18F-FDG PET/CT, Contrast-Enhanced CT and MRI.

Authors:  Dimitris Papamichail; Robert Hog; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-07

Review 3.  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

4.  Application Value of Mathematical Models of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Breast Cancer Lesions.

Authors:  Xiaolong Jiang; Chao Chen; Jie Liu; Sheng Liu
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2021-08-28       Impact factor: 2.629

Review 5.  Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Patients: Minimal Disease With Maximal Implications.

Authors:  Charalampos Charalampous; Taxiarchis Kourelis
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Prognostic impact of posttransplant FDG PET/CT scan in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Marcella Kaddoura; David Dingli; Francis K Buadi; Martha Q Lacy; Morie A Gertz; Angela Dispenzieri; Prashant Kapoor; Lisa Hwa; Amie Fonder; Miriam Hobbs; Suzanne Hayman; John Lust; Nelson Leung; Ronald S Go; Yi Lin; Wilson Gonsalves; Taxiarchis Kourelis; Rahma Warsame; Robert A Kyle; Stephen M Broski; Vincent Rajkumar; Shaji Kumar
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2021-07-13

7.  Correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient values of WB-DWI and clinical parameters in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Bei Zhang; Bingyang Bian; Zhiwei Zhao; Fang Lin; Zining Zhu; Mingwu Lou
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  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

Review 9.  Metabolic Volume Measurements in Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Maria Emilia Seren Takahashi; Irene Lorand-Metze; Carmino Antonio de Souza; Claudio Tinoco Mesquita; Fernando Amorim Fernandes; José Barreto Campello Carvalheira; Celso Dario Ramos
Journal:  Metabolites       Date:  2021-12-16

Review 10.  Imaging of treatment response and minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: state of the art WB-MRI and PET/CT.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.