Literature DB >> 35847719

Improving real-world myeloma patient access to whole body MRI through "open-access" knowledge sharing: The UK experience.

Martin F Kaiser1,2, Kevin Boyd2, Dow-Mu Koh3, Mihaela Rata3, Matthew Blackledge4, Christina Messiou3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 35847719      PMCID: PMC9176055          DOI: 10.1002/jha2.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  EJHaem        ISSN: 2688-6146


× No keyword cloud information.
In 2016, NICE guidelines [1] positioned whole body‐MRI (WB‐MRI) as the imaging modality of choice for all patients with a suspected diagnosis of myeloma in the UK. Despite these guidelines, a 2017 survey of UK myeloma treatment centers revealed that skeletal survey was the most commonly used imaging for patients with suspected myeloma followed by CT, MRI spine, and then WB‐MRI with no centers reporting use of FDG PET/CT in this setting. One of the identified challenges to providing a WB‐MRI service in the UK was radiologists training [2]. In this letter, we highlight standardization of WB‐MRI and opportunities for training that have resulted in improved access to WB‐MRI for patients with myeloma in clinical practice and clinical trials. Bone marrow disease imaging by MRI is clinically relevant for management of multiple myeloma patients as per international diagnostic guidelines. A positive MRI defined by the presence of >1 focal lesion >5 mm, is now considered as a high‐risk biomarker stratifying patients for treatment prior to significant cortical bone damage [3]. The radiology department at our institution has actively developed WB‐MRI protocols since 2007 and through successful clinical research achieved implementation as a routine clinical service as early as 2011. The combination of anatomical and functional information delivered by non‐invasive WB‐MRI offers superior sensitivity compared with other imaging techniques in addition to wide anatomical coverage, quantitative response assessments and evaluation of mechanical complications [4]. Although FDG PET/CT also offers both functional and anatomical detail with significant progress toward harmonizing interpretation [5], comparisons with contemporary WB‐MRI protocols have shown superior sensitivity for WB‐MRI [6, 7], on top of its non‐ionizing advantage. Furthermore, the 2016 assessment by NICE revealed a negative net monetary benefit for FDG PET/CT compared to a positive benefit for WB‐MRI. Building on our and other teams’ experience, we sought to standardize acquisition and reporting of WB‐MRI for patients with myeloma, which was published as an international consensus recommendation (MY‐RADS) in 2019 and presented at the Radiological Society of North America in 2018 and 2019 [8]. Specifically, these contemporary protocols incorporate quantitative diffusion weighted and Dixon MRI. We have already demonstrated that MY‐RADS can be successfully applied in a prospective multi‐center clinical trial setting within the IMAGIMM trial (substudy of the MUKnine trial; NCT03188172) across 10 sites thus far and three MRI vendor systems at 1.5T and 3.0T. In parallel to our research, which continues to demonstrate the advantages of WB‐MRI, we have responded to the need for structured education and pro‐active knowledge sharing of protocols for scanning and reporting as an important step for achieving wider access for myeloma patients. All Royal Marsden WB‐MRI protocols are freely available through open access websites (https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/magnetic-resonance-imaging/magnetom-world/clinical-corner/protocols/whole-body-mri/wb-mri-aera-skyra-avanto). We set up and ran educational courses including lectures and interactive workshops hosted by our institution, working closely with educational radiology organizations. In addition, we regularly host visitors to the MRI department to learn first‐hand how we perform and report scans. We report here on the large number of geographically widely distributed UK radiology units from myeloma treatment centers that have been reached through these initiatives. Since 2017, we have organized four interactive WB‐MRI courses: Royal Marsden Cancer Imaging Perspectives; two courses with the British Institute of Radiology and Prof Hall‐Craggs; one course with the International Cancer Imaging Society. In total, 226 radiologists attended one or more of these interactive courses, many more attending lecture‐based teaching initiatives. In addition, 29 radiologists have been hosted by The Royal Marsden to gain reporting experience. The Royal Marsden Cancer Imaging Perspectives course was the first to incorporate hands on training for radiographers and further practical training sessions have also been successful. Participants were from a wide range of hospitals across the UK, leading to substantive geographical reach of our educational initiative (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1

Number and workplace geography of attendees of WB‐MRI educational courses hosted by our institution between 2017 and now, including clinical trial related education/training

Number and workplace geography of attendees of WB‐MRI educational courses hosted by our institution between 2017 and now, including clinical trial related education/training While we are cognizant that significant barriers to WB‐MRI access for myeloma patients remain to be overcome, we are highly encouraged by scale of knowledge dissemination through our knowledge sharing strategy. Furthermore, our own survey of course attendees has indicated that although 52% of radiologists were offering a WB‐MRI service in 2017, this rose to 64% after our training. Note that 100% of radiologists believed WB‐MRI to be of clinical benefit and many radiologists anecdotally reported that NICE guidance was used to leverage a successful business case. The commonest reason for not providing the service was lack of MRI capacity (30%). Comparing with data from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UK has one of the lowest number of MRI systems per million population [9]. Although in part, this will be addressed by the UK governments commitment of £200 million for cancer screening that will include investment in new scanners, creative solutions to overcome staff and MRI scanner shortages are required. Artificial intelligence solutions for rapid image acquisition and automation of lesion detection and quantification are underway (NCT03574454). Increased availability of WB‐MRI will secure benefits for patients that reach far beyond first diagnosis of myeloma with emerging applications for response assessment and surveillance in high risk or asecretory patients [4]. Evidence for use of WB‐MRI in imaging metastatic bone disease [10], and screening of high‐risk populations [11], is also gaining momentum. We believe that knowledge sharing supports patient access to standardized scanning as well as future evidence generation by enabling WB‐MRI clinical trials in the NHS and elsewhere.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

MK and CM designed and wrote manuscript; all authors contributed to stated educational programs and editing the manuscript. Funding: Martin Kaiser was supported through a Jacquelin Forbes‐Nixon Fellowship.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MFK: Abbvie ‐ consultancy; Bristol‐Myers Squibb – consultancy, travel support; Chugai – consultancy; Janssen – consultancy, honoraria; Amgen – consultancy, honoraria; Takeda – consultancy, travel support; Celgene Corporation – consultancy, honoraria, research funding. KDB: Janssen – consultancy, honoraria, travel support; Amgen – honoraria; Takeda – consultancy, honoraria, travel support; Celgene – consultancy, honoraria, travel support; Novartis – consultancy.
  9 in total

1.  Interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma (IMPeTUs): final results. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe).

Authors:  Cristina Nanni; Annibale Versari; Stephane Chauvie; Elisa Bertone; Andrea Bianchi; Marco Rensi; Marilena Bellò; Andrea Gallamini; Francesca Patriarca; Francesca Gay; Barbara Gamberi; Pietro Ghedini; Michele Cavo; Stefano Fanti; Elena Zamagni
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Whole-Body Imaging in Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Christina Messiou; Martin Kaiser
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 3.  International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  S Vincent Rajkumar; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Antonio Palumbo; Joan Blade; Giampaolo Merlini; María-Victoria Mateos; Shaji Kumar; Jens Hillengass; Efstathios Kastritis; Paul Richardson; Ola Landgren; Bruno Paiva; Angela Dispenzieri; Brendan Weiss; Xavier LeLeu; Sonja Zweegman; Sagar Lonial; Laura Rosinol; Elena Zamagni; Sundar Jagannath; Orhan Sezer; Sigurdur Y Kristinsson; Jo Caers; Saad Z Usmani; Juan José Lahuerta; Hans Erik Johnsen; Meral Beksac; Michele Cavo; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Evangelos Terpos; Robert A Kyle; Kenneth C Anderson; Brian G M Durie; Jesus F San Miguel
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 41.316

4.  Low expression of hexokinase-2 is associated with false-negative FDG-positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Leo Rasche; Edgardo Angtuaco; James E McDonald; Amy Buros; Caleb Stein; Charlotte Pawlyn; Sharmilan Thanendrarajan; Carolina Schinke; Rohan Samant; Shmuel Yaccoby; Brian A Walker; Joshua Epstein; Maurizio Zangari; Frits van Rhee; Tobias Meissner; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Kari Hemminki; Richard Houlston; Bart Barlogie; Faith E Davies; Gareth J Morgan; Niels Weinhold
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 22.113

5.  Baseline results from the UK SIGNIFY study: a whole-body MRI screening study in TP53 mutation carriers and matched controls.

Authors:  Sibel Saya; Emma Killick; Sarah Thomas; Natalie Taylor; Elizabeth K Bancroft; Jeanette Rothwell; Sarah Benafif; Alexander Dias; Christos Mikropoulos; Jenny Pope; Anthony Chamberlain; Ranga Gunapala; Louise Izatt; Lucy Side; Lisa Walker; Susan Tomkins; Jackie Cook; Julian Barwell; Vicki Wiles; Lauren Limb; Diana Eccles; Martin O Leach; Susan Shanley; Fiona J Gilbert; Helen Hanson; David Gallagher; Bala Rajashanker; Richard W Whitehouse; Dow-Mu Koh; S Aslam Sohaib; D Gareth Evans; Rosalind A Eeles
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.375

6.  Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-Body MRI in Myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS).

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

7.  Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma?

Authors:  C Pawlyn; L Fowkes; S Otero; J R Jones; K D Boyd; F E Davies; G J Morgan; D J Collins; B Sharma; A Riddell; M F Kaiser; C Messiou
Journal:  Leukemia       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 11.528

8.  METastasis Reporting and Data System for Prostate Cancer: Practical Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Evaluations of Multiorgan Involvement in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Frederic E Lecouvet; Nina Tunariu; Dow-Mu Koh; Frederik De Keyzer; David J Collins; Evis Sala; Heinz Peter Schlemmer; Giuseppe Petralia; H Alberto Vargas; Stefano Fanti; H Bertrand Tombal; Johann de Bono
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  National survey of imaging practice for suspected or confirmed plasma cell malignancies.

Authors:  Olwen Amy Westerland; Guy Pratt; Majid Kazmi; Inas El-Najjar; Matthew Streetly; Kwee Yong; Monica Morris; Rakesh Mehan; Martin Sambrook; Margaret Hall-Craggs; David Silver; Vicky Goh
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.039

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.