Biomedical papers, 2016 (vol. 160), issue 2

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2016, 160(2):305-309 | 10.5507/bp.2015.064

Prospective comparison of conventional radiography, low-dose computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in monoclonal gammopathies

Jiri Minarika, Petra Krhovskaa, Jan Hrbekb, Tomas Pikaa, Jaroslav Bacovskya, Miroslav Hermanb, Vlastimil Scudlaa
a Department of Hemato-Oncology, University Hospital Olomouc and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
b Department of Radiology, University Hospital Olomouc and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic

Aims: We carried out a prospective study in order to identify the best imaging approach for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS).

Methods: We assessed the extent of myeloma bone disease (MBD) in 112 individuals - 84 patients with MM and 28 individuals with MGUS. For the detection of osteolytic involvement we used whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI), low-dose computed tomography (LD-CT) and conventional radiography (CR). Each method assessed the presence of osteolytic involvement, compressive fractures and extramedullary involvement in the following regions: skull, spine and chest, pelvis and humerus and femur. We compared the difference in the number and extent of osteolytic involvement, especially the findings in CR negative patients.

Results: Conventional radiography showed no superiority in any of the evaluated regions, and failed in the detection of extramedullary massess and spine involvement. WB-MRI was best at imaging the spine including extramedullary involvement, however, detection of osteolytic lesions of the skull was limited in comparison with both CR and LD-CT. Both WB-MRI and LD-CT were comparable in imaging of lesions of pelvis, humerus, femur and the presence of extramedullary masses. LD-CT showed superiority in detection of skull lesions but lower sensitivity in spine compared to WB-MRI.

Conclusions: Our results confirm that relying solely on CR in the diagnostics of MM is insufficient. We suggest that the most suitable method for primary assessment of osteolytic involvement in monoclonal gammopathies should include either whole-body MRI together with CR of the skull or, with an equivalent sensitivity, whole body LD-CT.

Keywords: multiple myeloma, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, imaging methods, conventional radiography, whole-body magnetic resonance, whole-body low-dose computed tomography

Received: May 29, 2015; Accepted: December 3, 2015; Prepublished online: January 5, 2016; Published: June 24, 2016


References

  1. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, Tosi P, Beksac M, Sezer O, Siegel D, Lokhorst H, Kumar S, Rajkumar SV, Niesvizky R, Moulopoulos LA, Durie BG. 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;23:1545-56. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Terpos E, Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA. Advances in Imaging and the Management of Myeloma Bone Disease. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:1907-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Hanrahan ChJ, Christensen CR, Crim JR. Current concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MRI imaging and FDG PET/CT. RadioGraphics 2010;30:127-42. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Lutje S, de Rooy JWJ, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJG, Reinier A. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosis, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2009;88:1161-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Myslivecek M, Nekula J, Bacovsky J, Scudla V, Koranda P, Kaminek M. Multiple myeloma: predictive value of Tc-99m MIBI scintigraphy and MRI in its diagnosis and therapy. Nucl Med Rev 2008;11:91-5.
  6. Delorme S, Baur-Melnyk A. Imaging in multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol, 2009;70:401-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U, Gunther RW. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1429-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhman S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R, Reiser MF. Whole body MRI versus whole body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1097-104. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP, Gleeson JP, Fitzpatrick P, Byrne B, McHugh J, O´Connell M, O´Gorman P, Eustace SJ. 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;38:225-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O, Tosi P, Tacchetti P, Cangini D, Perrone G, Ceccolini M, Brioli A, Buttignol S, Fanin R, Salizzoni E, Baccarani M, Fanti S, Cavo M. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluordeoxyglucose 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;92:50-5. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos M-V, Kumar S, Hillengass J, Kastritis E, Richardson P, Landgren O, Paiva B, Dispenzieri A, Weiss B, LeLeu X, Zweegman S, Lonial S, Rosinol L, Zamagni E, Jagannath S, Sezer O, Kristinsson SY, Caers J, Usmani SZ, Lahuerta JJ, Johnsen HE, Beksac M, Cavo M, Goldschmidt H, Terpos E, Kyle RA, Anderson KC, Durie BGM, San Miguel JF. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:538-48. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Minarik J, Hrbek J, Pika T, Novak M, Bacovsky J, Herman M, Hrabalek L, Frysakova L, Pusciznova P, Scudla V. X-ray in Multiple Myeloma - Not a "Golden Standard" any More: Case Series. J Bone Mar Res 2014;2:1-4. doi:10.4172/2329-8820.1000149. Go to original source...
  13. Healy CF, Murray JG, Eustace SJ, Madewell J, O´Gorman PJ, O´Sullivan P. Multiple Myeloma: A Review of Imaging Features and Radiological Techniques. Bone Mar Res 2011, Article ID 583439. doi:10.1155/2011/583439. Go to original source...
  14. Zamagni E, Cavo M. The role of imaging techniques in the management of multiple myeloma. Brit J Haematol 2012;159:499-513. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Walker RC, Brown TL, Jones-Jackson LB, De Blanche L, Bartel T. Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med 2012;53:1091-101. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, Kamphuis MH, Raijmakers PG, Pietes van den Bos IC, Heggelman BG, Nievelstein RJ, Otten RH, van Lammeren-Venema D, Zijlstra JM, Arens AI, de Rooy JW, Hoekstra OS, Raymakers R, Sonneveld P, Ostelo RW, Zweegman S. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systemic review. Brit J Haematol 2013;162:50-61. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Cocks K, Cohen D, Wisløff F, Sezer O, Lee S, Hippe E, Gimsing P, Turesson I, Hajek R, Smith A, Graham L, Phillips A, Stead M, Velikova G, Brown J, EORTC Quality of Life Group. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-MY20) in assessing the quality of life of patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:1670-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Saad F, Lipton A, Cook R, Chen YM, Smith M, Coleman R. Pathologic fractures correlate with reduced survival in patients with malignant bone disease. Cancer 2007;110:1860-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009;23:3-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, McHugh J, O´Connell MJ, O´Gorman PJ, Eustace SJ. Whole-Body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:980-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Hillengas J, Weber M-A, Kilk K, Listl K, Wagner-Gund B, Hillengass M, Hielscher T, Farid A, Neben K, Delorme S, Landgren O, Goldschmidt H. Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia 2014;28:174-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Ippolito D, Besostri V, Bonaffini PA, Rossini F, Di Lelio A, Sironi S. Diagnostic value of whole-body low-dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) in bone lesions detection in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Eur J Radiol 2013,82:2322-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...