Download PDF
Rofo 2013; 185(1): 26-33
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325405
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Moderne Bildgebungsverfahren beim Multiplen Myelom

Modern Imaging Techniques in Patients with Multiple Myeloma
P. Bannas
1   Diagnostikzentrum, Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
N. Kröger
2   Klinik und Poliklinik für Stammzelltransplantation, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
G. Adam
1   Diagnostikzentrum, Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
,
T. Derlin
1   Diagnostikzentrum, Klinik und Poliklinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 May 2012

28 August 2012

Publication Date:
29 November 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Bildgebende Verfahren sind von entscheidender Bedeutung für die Diagnostik und das initiale Staging des Multiplen Myeloms sowie für die Abgrenzung zu anderen monoklonalen Plasmazellerkrankungen. Für die Diagnostik ossärer und extraossärer Manifestationen des Multiplen Myeloms steht neben der Projektionsradiografie eine Vielzahl moderner Bildgebungsverfahren wie Ganzkörper-low-dose-CT, Ganzkörper-MRT und 18F-FDG PET/CT zur Verfügung. Die Projektionsradiografie stellt trotz der bekannten Limitationen wie geringer Sensitivität, eingeschränkter Spezifität und fehlender Nachweismöglichkeit extraossärer Läsionen auch aufgrund der hohen Verfügbarkeit und der geringen Kosten noch den Goldstandard in der Diagnostik des Multiplen Myeloms dar. Die Ganzkörper-low-dose-CT mit ihrer höheren Sensitivität zur Detektion ossärer Manifestationen und der Möglichkeit zur Erfassung eines extraossären Befalls ersetzt an vielen Zentren zunehmend die Projektionsradiografie. Die höchste Sensitivität sowohl für die Darstellung eines Knochenmarkbefalls als auch für die Erfassung eines Weichteil- und Organbefalls besitzen die Ganzkörper-MRT und die 18F-FDG PET/CT, wobei ein diffuser ossärer Befall am sensitivsten mit der MRT visualisiert werden kann und der extraossäre Befall am sensitivsten mit der PET/CT visualisiert werden kann. Eine Ganzkörper-MRT sollte bei allen Patienten mit unauffälligem konventionellem Röntgenskelettstatus und allen Patienten mit scheinbar solitärem Plasmozytom erwogen werden.

Abstract

Imaging studies are essential for both diagnosis and initial staging of multiple myeloma, as well as for differentiation from other monoclonal plasma cell diseases. Apart from conventional radiography, a variety of newer imaging modalities including whole-body low-dose-CT, whole-body MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT may be used for detection of osseous and extraosseous myeloma manifestations. Despite of known limitations such as limited sensitivity and specificity and the inability to detect extraosseous lesions, conventional radiography still remains the gold standard for staging newly diagnosed myeloma, partly due to its wide availability and low costs. Whole-body low-dose CT is increasingly used due to its higher sensitivity for the detection of osseous lesions and its ability to diagnose extraosseous lesions, and is replacing conventional radiography at selected centres. The highest sensitivity for both detection of bone marrow disease and extraosseous lesions can be achieved with whole-body MRI or 18F-FDG PET/CT. Diffuse bone marrow infiltration may be visualized by whole-body MRI with high sensitivity. Whole-body MRI is at least recommended in all patients with normal conventional radiography and in all patients with an apparently solitary plasmacytoma of bone. To obtain the most precise readings, optimized examination protocols and dedicated radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians familiar with the complex and variable morphologies of myeloma lesions are required.

Key words

hematologic diseases - bone marrow infiltration - diagnostic radiology - multiple myeloma
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bataille R, Harousseau JL. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1657-1664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Buchbender C, Antoch G, Nawatny J. Meningeal plasmacytoma: delayed diagnosis with sequelae. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 761-762
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wu P, Davies FE, Boyd K et al. The impact of extramedullary disease at presentation on the outcome of myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 2009; 50: 230-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Varettoni M, Corso A, Pica G et al. Incidence, presenting features and outcome of extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma: a longitudinal study on 1003 consecutive patients. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 325-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brandmaier P, Kahn T, Stumpp P. Extraosseous myeloma manifestation of the thyroid cartilage. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2011; 183: 477-478
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 2011; 117: 4701-4705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Giralt S, Stadtmauer EA, Harousseau JL et al. International myeloma working group (IMWG) consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current status of stem cell collection and high-dose therapy for multiple myeloma and the role of plerixafor (AMD 3100). Leukemia 2009; 23: 1904-1912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shimoni A, Hardan I, Ayuk F et al. Allogenic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning in patients with refractory and recurrent multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up. Cancer 2010; 116: 3621-3630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kroger N. Mini-Midi-Maxi? How to harness the graft-versus-myeloma effect and target molecular remission after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 2007; 21: 1851-1858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Barlogie B, Tricot GJ, van Rhee F et al. Long-term outcome results of the first tandem autotransplant trial for multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2006; 135: 158-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Blade J, Dimopoulos M, Rosinol L et al. Smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: current diagnostic criteria, new predictors of outcome, and follow-up recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 690-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kyle RA, Durie BG, Rajkumar SV et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma: IMWG consensus perspectives risk factors for progression and guidelines for monitoring and management. Leukemia 2010; 24: 1121-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV et al. A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 564-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL 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: 1545-1556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Durie BG, Salmon SE. 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: 842-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 1539-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Giuliani N, Rizzoli V, Roodman GD. Multiple myeloma bone disease: Pathophysiology of osteoblast inhibition. Blood 2006; 108: 3992-3996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1860-1873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Collins CD. Multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2010; 10: 20-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23: 3-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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: 749-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol 1967; 18: 158-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wahlin A, Holm J, Osterman G et al. Evaluation of serial bone X-ray examination in multiple myeloma. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 385-387
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kropil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP 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: 225-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lutje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S et al. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2009; 88: 1161-1168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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: 1617-1626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Horger M, Claussen CD, 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: 289-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chassang M, Grimaud A, Cucchi JM et al. Can low-dose computed tomographic scan of the spine replace conventional radiography? An evaluation based on imaging myelomas, bone metastases, and fractures from osteoporosis. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 225-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1121-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1097-1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr HR et al. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 56-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Alexanian R et al. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment. Radiology 1994; 193: 441-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Moulopoulos LA, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1824-1828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 251-256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1606-1610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Weber D et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of solitary plasmacytoma of bone. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1311-1315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hillengass J, Bauerle T, Bartl R et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging for non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of bone marrow infiltration in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease: a comparative study with histology. Br J Haematol 2011; 153: 721-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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: 525-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 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: 50-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Nanni C, Rubello D, Zamagni E et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in myeloma with presumed solitary plasmocytoma of bone. In Vivo 2008; 22: 513-517
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Durie BG, Waxman AD, D’Agnolo A et al. Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1457-1463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Brenner W, Friedrich RE, Gawad KA et al. Prognostic relevance of FDG PET in patients with neurofibromatosis type-1 and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 428-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011; 118: 5989-5995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Haznedar R, Aki SZ, Akdemir OU et al. Value of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting survival in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114: 2068-2076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Callander NS, Roodman GD. Myeloma bone disease. Semin Hematol 2001; 38: 276-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Derlin T, Weber C, Habermann CR et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection and localization of residual or recurrent disease in patients with multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39: 493-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bannas P, Hentschel HB, Bley TA et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body MRI for the detection of persistent or relapsing disease in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2007-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar