Kaiwen Wang1,2, Elsa Lee3, Shedrack Kenis4, Simon Hallam5, Athar Haroon6, Simon Wan7, Neil Rabin8, Antonio Rojas-Garcia9, Anwar Padhani10, Sola Adeleke11,12. 1. School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 2. School of Medicine, The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 3. Guy's, King's and St Thomas' School of Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. 4. Echolab Radiology and Laboratory Services, Benin, Nigeria. 5. Department of Haemato-oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. 6. Department of Nuclear Medicine, St Bartholomew's Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. 7. Institute of Nuclear Medicine, UCL and UCL Hospitals, London, UK. 8. Department of Haemato-Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. 9. Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 10. Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK. 11. School of Cancer & Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK. sesola2003@gmail.com. 12. Department of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. sesola2003@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System recently published provides a framework for the standardised interpretation of DW-WBMRI in response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM) based on expert opinion. However, there is a lack of meta-analysis providing higher-level evidence to support the recommendations. In addition, some disagreement exists in the literature regarding the effect of timing and lesion subtypes on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value changes post-treatment. METHOD: Medline, Cochrane and Embase were searched from inception to 20th July 2021, using terms reflecting multiple myeloma and DW-WBMRI. Using PRISMA reporting guidelines, data were extracted by two investigators. Quality was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 method. RESULTS: Of the 74 papers screened, 10 studies were included comprising 259 patients (127 males and 102 females) and 1744 reported lesions. Responders showed a significant absolute ADC change of 0.21×10-3 mm/s2 (95% CI, 0.01-0.41) with little evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran Q, p = 0.12, I2 = 45%) or publication bias (p = 0.737). Non-responders did not show a significant absolute difference in ADC (0.06 ×10-3 mm/s2, 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.19). A percentage ADC increase of 34.78% (95% CI, 10.75-58.81) was observed in responders. Meta-regression showed an inverse trend between ADC increases and time since chemotherapy initiation which did not reach statistical significance (R2 = 20.46, p = 0.282). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports the use of the DW-WBMRI as an imaging biomarker for response assessment. More evidence is needed to further characterise ADC changes by lesion subtypes over time. KEY POINTS: • In multiple myeloma patients who received chemotherapy, responders have a significant absolute increase in ADC values that is not seen in non-responders. • A 35% increase in ADC from baseline values is found to classify response post-induction chemotherapy which corroborates with expert opinion from the Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System. • More evidence is needed to further characterise ADC changes by lesion subtypes over time after induction of therapy.
OBJECTIVE: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System recently published provides a framework for the standardised interpretation of DW-WBMRI in response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM) based on expert opinion. However, there is a lack of meta-analysis providing higher-level evidence to support the recommendations. In addition, some disagreement exists in the literature regarding the effect of timing and lesion subtypes on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value changes post-treatment. METHOD: Medline, Cochrane and Embase were searched from inception to 20th July 2021, using terms reflecting multiple myeloma and DW-WBMRI. Using PRISMA reporting guidelines, data were extracted by two investigators. Quality was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 method. RESULTS: Of the 74 papers screened, 10 studies were included comprising 259 patients (127 males and 102 females) and 1744 reported lesions. Responders showed a significant absolute ADC change of 0.21×10-3 mm/s2 (95% CI, 0.01-0.41) with little evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran Q, p = 0.12, I2 = 45%) or publication bias (p = 0.737). Non-responders did not show a significant absolute difference in ADC (0.06 ×10-3 mm/s2, 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.19). A percentage ADC increase of 34.78% (95% CI, 10.75-58.81) was observed in responders. Meta-regression showed an inverse trend between ADC increases and time since chemotherapy initiation which did not reach statistical significance (R2 = 20.46, p = 0.282). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis supports the use of the DW-WBMRI as an imaging biomarker for response assessment. More evidence is needed to further characterise ADC changes by lesion subtypes over time. KEY POINTS: • In multiple myeloma patients who received chemotherapy, responders have a significant absolute increase in ADC values that is not seen in non-responders. • A 35% increase in ADC from baseline values is found to classify response post-induction chemotherapy which corroborates with expert opinion from the Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System. • More evidence is needed to further characterise ADC changes by lesion subtypes over time after induction of therapy.
Authors: Jens Hillengass; Tobias Bäuerle; Reiner Bartl; Mindaugas Andrulis; Fabienne McClanahan; Frederik B Laun; Christian Martin Zechmann; Rajiv Shah; Barbara Wagner-Gund; Dirk Simon; Christiane Heiss; Kai Neben; Anthony D Ho; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Stefan Delorme; Bram Stieltjes Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Shaji Kumar; Bruno Paiva; Kenneth C Anderson; Brian Durie; Ola Landgren; Philippe Moreau; Nikhil Munshi; Sagar Lonial; Joan Bladé; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Meletios Dimopoulos; Efstathios Kastritis; Mario Boccadoro; Robert Orlowski; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Andrew Spencer; Jian Hou; Wee Joo Chng; Saad Z Usmani; Elena Zamagni; Kazuyuki Shimizu; Sundar Jagannath; Hans E Johnsen; Evangelos Terpos; Anthony Reiman; Robert A Kyle; Pieter Sonneveld; Paul G Richardson; Philip McCarthy; Heinz Ludwig; Wenming Chen; Michele Cavo; Jean-Luc Harousseau; Suzanne Lentzsch; Jens Hillengass; Antonio Palumbo; Alberto Orfao; S Vincent Rajkumar; Jesus San Miguel; Herve Avet-Loiseau Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christina Messiou; Jens Hillengass; Stefan Delorme; Frédéric E Lecouvet; Lia A Moulopoulos; David J Collins; Matthew D Blackledge; Niels Abildgaard; Brian Østergaard; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Ola Landgren; Jon Thor Asmussen; Martin F Kaiser; Anwar Padhani Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 11.105