Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2010; 14(1): 037-046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1248705
© Thieme Medical Publishers

The Role of Whole-Body Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, and Follow-Up of Multiple Myeloma

Conor P. Shortt1 , Fiona Carty2 , John G. Murray3
  • 1Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 2Department of Radiology, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Finglas, Dublin, Ireland
  • 3Department of Radiology, Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 March 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Multiple myeloma is one of the most common hematological malignancies and accounts for significant morbidity and mortality. In the past, detection of myelomatous deposits by radiography was the main method of radiological assessment in this disease. However, in recent years the introduction of whole-body imaging techniques, specifically low-dose whole-body computed tomography, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography, has facilitated a more comprehensive assessment of this heterogeneous and often diffuse disease. Each of these whole-body imaging techniques has specific applications and limitations in the assessment of multiple myeloma that the interpreting radiologist and referring clinician need to be aware of. As these techniques gain further acceptance in the radiology and hematology communities, their use in the assessment of multiple myeloma is likely to increase further.

KEYWORDS

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 - tomography–emission-computed - positron emission - tomography–x-ray computed - MRI - total body - multiple myeloma

REFERENCES

  • 1 Parkin D M, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;  55(2) 74-108
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Durie B G, Kyle R A, Belch A Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation et al. Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation.  Hematol J. 2003;  4(6) 379-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 International Myeloma Working Group . Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group.  Br J Haematol. 2003;  121(5) 749-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo R L IMWG et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma.  Leukemia. 2009;  23(9) 1545-1556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 D'Sa S, Abildgaard N, Tighe J, Shaw P, Hall-Craggs M. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of myeloma.  Br J Haematol. 2007;  137(1) 49-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Durie B G, Salmon S E. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival.  Cancer. 1975;  36(3) 842-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Durie B G. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system.  Eur J Cancer. 2006;  42(11) 1539-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Richardson P G, Sonneveld P, Schuster M W Assessment of Proteasome Inhibition for Extending Remissions (APEX) Investigators et al. Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma.  N Engl J Med. 2005;  352(24) 2487-2498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mulligan M, Smith S, Talmi D. Whole body radiography for bone survey screening of cancer and myeloma patients.  Cancer Invest. 2008;  26(9) 916-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dinter D J, Neff W K, Klaus J et al.. Comparison of whole-body MR imaging and conventional X-ray examination in patients with multiple myeloma and implications for therapy.  Ann Hematol. 2009;  88(5) 457-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baur A, Stäbler A, Nagel D et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon?.  Cancer. 2002;  95(6) 1334-1345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine.  Br J Haematol. 1995;  91(3) 658-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gleeson T G, Moriarty J, Shortt C P et al.. Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI).  Skeletal Radiol. 2009;  38(3) 225-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mahnken A H, Wildberger J E, Gehbauer G et al.. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  178(6) 1429-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B et al.. The benefit of using whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up and therapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma.  Cancer. 2007;  109(8) 1617-1626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C et al.. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;  190(4) 1097-1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Moulopoulos L A, Dimopoulos M A, Alexanian R, Leeds N E, Libshitz H I. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment.  Radiology. 1994;  193(2) 441-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D et al.. MR appearance of multiple myeloma of the spine before and after treatment.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;  160(5) 1053-1057
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Horger M, Claussen C D, Bross-Bach U et al.. Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography.  Eur J Radiol. 2005;  54(2) 289-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Antoch G, Vogt F M, Freudenberg L S et al.. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology.  JAMA. 2003;  290(24) 3199-3206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Dürr H R, Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma.  Eur J Radiol. 2005;  55(1) 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hargaden G, O'Connell M, Kavanagh E, Powell T, Ward R, Eustace S. Current concepts in whole-body imaging using turbo short tau inversion recovery MR imaging.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  180(1) 247-252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Johnston C, Brennan S, Ford S, Eustace S. Whole body MR imaging: applications in oncology.  Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;  32(3) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lecouvet F E, Vande Berg B C, Malghem J, Maldague B E. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography imaging in multiple myeloma.  Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2001;  5(1) 43-55
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Weininger M, Lauterbach B, Knop S et al.. Whole-body MRI of multiple myeloma: comparison of different MRI sequences in assessment of different growth patterns.  Eur J Radiol. 2009;  69(2) 339-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bäuerle T, Hillengass J, Fechtner K et al.. Multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: importance of whole-body versus spinal MR imaging.  Radiology. 2009;  252(2) 477-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Baur A, Stäbler A, Bartl R, Lamerz R, Reiser M. Infiltration patterns of plasmacytomas in magnetic resonance tomography [in German].  Rofo. 1996;  164(6) 457-463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shortt C P, Gleeson T G, Breen K A et al.. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;  192(4) 980-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Moulopoulos L A, Dimopoulos M A. Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in hematologic malignancies.  Blood. 1997;  90(6) 2127-2147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F et al.. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.  Haematologica. 2007;  92(1) 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck A K et al.. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;  29(3) 361-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour J F, Patrikeos A, Hicks R J, Prince H M. A comparison of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma.  Eur J Haematol. 2004;  72(1) 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bredella M A, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;  184(4) 1199-1204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Orchard K, Barrington S, Buscombe J, Hilson A, Prentice H G, Mehta A. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of occult disease in multiple myeloma.  Br J Haematol. 2002;  117(1) 133-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gavish I, Bennett M, Israel O, Bar-Shalom R. 2-[18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging in non-secretory multiple myeloma.  Br J Haematol. 2003;  123(4) 566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Salaun P Y, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Bodet-Milin C, Moreau P, Bodéré-Kraeber F. FDG-positron-emission tomography for staging and therapeutic assessment in patients with plasmacytoma.  Haematologica. 2008;  93(8) 1269-1271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M et al.. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results.  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006;  33(5) 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Durie B G, Waxman A D, D'Agnolo A, Williams C M. Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma.  J Nucl Med. 2002;  43(11) 1457-1463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Wiesenthal A A, Nguyen B D. F-18 FDG PET/CT staging of multiple myeloma with diffuse osseous and extramedullary lesions.  Clin Nucl Med. 2007;  32(10) 797-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Jadvar H, Conti P S. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma.  Skeletal Radiol. 2002;  31(12) 690-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Villa G, Balleari E, Carletto M et al.. Staging and therapy monitoring of multiple myeloma by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy: a five year single center experience.  J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2005;  24(3) 355-361
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Tirovola E B, Biassoni L, Britton K E, Kaleva N, Kouykin V, Malpas J S. The use of 99mTc-MIBI scanning in multiple myeloma.  Br J Cancer. 1996;  74(11) 1815-1820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Balleari E, Villa G, Garrè S et al.. Technetium-99m-sestamibi scintigraphy in multiple myeloma and related gammopathies: a useful tool for the identification and follow-up of myeloma bone disease.  Haematologica. 2001;  86(1) 78-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Mirzaei S, Filipits M, Keck A et al.. Comparison of technetium-99m-MIBI imaging with MRI for detection of spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma.  BMC Nucl Med. 2003;  3(1) 2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Conor P ShorttM.Sc. 

Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

132 South 10th St., Rm. 1091, Philadelphia, PA 19107

Email: conor.shortt@jefferson.edu