nach oben

Skeletal Radiology

Erschienen in:

13.03.2017 | Review Article

Whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of multiple myeloma

verfasst von: Julie C. Dutoit, Koenraad L. Verstraete

Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology | Ausgabe 6/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive imaging technique for the detection of bone marrow infiltration, and has therefore recently been included in the new diagnostic myeloma criteria, as proposed by the International Myeloma Working Group. Nevertheless, conventional MRI only provides anatomical information and is therefore only of limited use in the response assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. The additional information from functional MRI techniques, such as diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, can improve the detection rate of bone marrow infiltration and the assessment of response. This can further enhance the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in the staging of multiple myeloma patients. This article provides an overview of the technical aspects of conventional and functional MRI techniques with practical recommendations. It reviews the diagnostic performance, prognostic value, and role in therapy assessment in multiple myeloma and its precursor stages.

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(3):842–54.PubMedCrossRef

Engelhardt M, Kleber M, Frydrychowicz A, et al. Superiority of magnetic resonance imaging over conventional radiographs in multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res. 2009;29(11):4745–50.PubMed

Winterbottom AP, Shaw AS. Imaging patients with myeloma. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRef

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(3):225–36.PubMedCrossRef

Terpos E, Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA. Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone disease. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(14):1907–15.PubMedCrossRef

Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, 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):1429–36.PubMedCrossRef

Wolf MB, Murray F, Kilk K, et al. Sensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(7):1222–30.PubMedCrossRef

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):1097–104.PubMedCrossRef

Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(11):1539–43.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Mena E, Choyke P, Tan E, Landgren O, Kurdziel K. Molecular imaging in myeloma precursor disease. Semin Hematol. 2011;48(1):22–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

11.

Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20(9):1467–73.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Adam Z, Bolcak K, Stanicek J, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma, solitary plasmocytoma and monoclonal gammapathy of unknown significance. Neoplasma. 2007;54(6):536–40.PubMed

13.

Lutje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2009;88(12):1161–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

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(23):5989–95.PubMedCrossRef

15.

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):50–5.PubMedCrossRef

16.

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(3):493–500.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A, et al. Contrast enhanced MRI and (1)(8)F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):4013–8.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:980–6.

19.

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(7):1091–101.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Hillengass J, Landgren O. Challenges and opportunities of novel imaging techniques in monoclonal plasma cell disorders: imaging “early myeloma”. Leuk Lymphoma. 2013;54(7):1355–63.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Schmidt GP, Reiser MF, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body MRI for the staging and follow-up of patients with metastasis. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(3):393–400.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Dimopoulos MA, Hillengass J, Usmani S, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus statement. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):657–64.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lecouvet FE, Larbi A, Pasoglou V, et al. MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(7):1986–97.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Padhani AR, Khan AA. Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol. 2010;5(1):39–52.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Caers J, Withofs N, Hillengass J, et al. The role of positron emission tomography-computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow up of multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2014;99(4):629–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Dutoit JC, Vanderkerken MA, Verstraete KL. Value of whole body MRI and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the diagnosis, follow-up and evaluation of disease activity and extent in multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(9):1444–52.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Dutoit JC, Vanderkerken MA, Anthonissen J, Dochy F, Verstraete KL. The diagnostic value of SE MRI and DWI of the spine in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smouldering myeloma and multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(11):2754–65.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Dutoit JC, Claus E, Offner F, Noens L, Delanghe J, Verstraete KL. Combined evaluation of conventional MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging for response evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(2):373–82.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Lecouvet FE, Maldague B. Magnetic resonance imaging of the normal bone marrow. Skeletal Radiol. 1998;27(9):471–83.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Lecouvet FE. Whole-body MR imaging: musculoskeletal applications. Radiology. 2016;279(2):345–65.

31.

Vogler 3rd JB, Murphy WA. Bone marrow imaging. Radiology. 1988;168(3):679–93.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Shah LM, Hanrahan CJ. MRI of spinal bone marrow. I. Techniques and normal age-related appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(6):1298–308.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bier G, Kloth C, Schabel C, Bongers M, Nikolaou K, Horger M. Vertebral lesion distribution in multiple myeloma—assessed by reduced-dose whole-body MDCT. Skeletal Radiol. 2016;45(1):127–33.PubMedCrossRef

34.

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(9):1606–10.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Lecouvet FE, et al. Nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy: correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory findings and spontaneous clinical outcome. Radiology. 1997;202(1):247–51.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Hillengass J, Weber MA, Kilk K, et al. Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia. 2014;28(1):174–8.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Merz M, Hielscher T, Wagner B, et al. Predictive value of longitudinal whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28(9):1902–8.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Silva Jr JR, Hayashi D, Yonenaga T, et al. MRI of bone marrow abnormalities in hematological malignancies. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19(5):393–9.PubMed

39.

Schmidt GP, Reiser MF, Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body imaging of the musculoskeletal system: the value of MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2007;36(12):1109–19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Baur A, Stabler A, Bartl R, Lamerz R, Reiser M. Infiltration patterns of plasmacytomas in magnetic resonance tomography. Rofo. 1996;164(6):457–63.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr HR, Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55(1):56–63.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(4):1029–36.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Scheiff JM, et al. Sequential quantitative MR analysis of bone marrow: differences during treatment of lymphoid versus myeloid leukemia. Radiology. 1996;201(2):519–23.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in hematologic malignancies. Blood. 1997;90(6):2127–47.PubMed

45.

Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos A, Smith T, Delasalle KB, Alexanian R. Risk of disease progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med. 1993;94(1):57–61.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Mariette X, Zagdanski AM, Guermazi A, et al. Prognostic value of vertebral lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stage I multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1999;104(4):723–9.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Weber DM, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Delasalle KB, Smith T, Alexanian R. Prognostic features of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1997;97(4):810–4.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(9):1121–8.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Christoulas D, et al. Diffuse MRI marrow pattern correlates with increased angiogenesis, advanced disease features and poor prognosis in newly diagnosed myeloma treated with novel agents. Leukemia. 2010;24(6):1206–12.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, et al. Diffuse pattern of bone marrow involvement on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with high risk cytogenetics and poor outcome in newly diagnosed, symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma: a single center experience on 228 patients. Am J Hematol. 2012;87(9):861–4.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Mai EK, Hielscher T, Kloth JK, et al. Association between magnetic resonance imaging patterns and baseline disease features in multiple myeloma: analyzing surrogates of tumour mass and biology. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):3939–48.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Yankelevitz DF, Henschke CI, Knapp PH, Nisce L, Yi Y, Cahill P. Effect of radiation therapy on thoracic and lumbar bone marrow: evaluation with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991;157(1):87–92.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Stevens SK, Moore SG, Kaplan ID. Early and late bone-marrow changes after irradiation: MR evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154(4):745–50.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Daldrup-Link HE, Henning T, Link TM. MR imaging of therapy-induced changes of bone marrow. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(3):743–61.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Lecouvet FE, Dechambre S, Malghem J, Ferrant A, Vande Berg BC, Maldague B. Bone marrow transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: prognostic significance of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(1):91–6.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Hillengass J, Ayyaz S, Kilk K, et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2012;97(11):1757–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

57.

Vande Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Galant C, Maldague BE, Malghem J. Normal variants and frequent marrow alterations that simulate bone marrow lesions at MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2005;43(4):761–70.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Hartman RP, Sundaram M, Okuno SH, Sim FH. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):645–53.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Padhani AR, Koh DM. Diffusion MR imaging for monitoring of treatment response. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2011;19(1):181–209.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res. 1989;49(23):6449–65.PubMed

61.

Vacca A, Ribatti D, Roccaro AM, Ria R, Palermo L, Dammacco F. Bone marrow angiogenesis and plasma cell angiogenic and invasive potential in patients with active multiple myeloma. Acta Haematol. 2001;106(4):162–9.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Nosas-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(1):154–62.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Barrett T, Brechbiel M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. MRI of tumor angiogenesis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(2):235–49.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Merz M, Ritsch J, Kunz C, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of antiangiogenic treatment effects in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21(1):106–12.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Verstraete KL, Van der Woude HJ, Hogendoorn PC, De-Deene Y, Kunnen M, Bloem J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: basic principles and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996;6(2):311–21.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M. Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging--parametric “first-pass” images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology. 1994;192(3):835–43.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Haase A. Snapshot FLASH MRI. Applications to T1, T2, and chemical-shift imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1990;13(1):77–89.

68.

Haase A, Matthaei D, Bartkowski R, Duhmke E, Leibfritz D. Inversion recovery snapshot FLASH MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1989;13(6):1036–40.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Verstraete KL, Vanzieleghem B, De Deene Y, et al. Static, dynamic and first-pass MR imaging of musculoskeletal lesions using gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol. 1995;36(1):27–36.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Kormano M, Dean PB. Extravascular contrast material: the major component of contrast enhancement. Radiology. 1976;121(2):379–82.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Brasch RC. New directions in the development of MR imaging contrast media. Radiology. 1992;183(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Ross JS, Delamarter R, Hueftle MG, et al. Gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging of the postoperative lumbar spine: time course and mechanism of enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989;152(4):825–34.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Erlemann R, Reiser MF, Peters PE, et al. Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA--enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171(3):767–73.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Breault SR, Heye T, Bashir MR, et al. Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of pelvic and lumbar bone marrow: effect of age and marrow fat content on pharmacokinetic parameter values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):W297–303.PubMedCrossRef

75.

Dutoit JC, Verstraete KL. MRI in multiple myeloma: a pictorial review of diagnostic and post-treatment findings. Insights Imaging. 2016;7(4):553–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

76.

Lavini C, de Jonge MC, van de Sande MG, Tak PP, Nederveen AJ, Maas M. Pixel-by-pixel analysis of DCE MRI curve patterns and an illustration of its application to the imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(5):604–12.PubMedCrossRef

77.

Hayes C, Padhani AR, Leach MO. Assessing changes in tumour vascular function using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. NMR Biomed. 2002;15(2):154–63.PubMedCrossRef

78.

Padhani AR, Leach MO. Antivascular cancer treatments: functional assessments by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(3):324–41.PubMedCrossRef

79.

Garcia-Figueiras R, Padhani AR, Beer AJ, et al. Imaging of tumor angiogenesis for radiologists. I. Biological and technical basis. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2015;44(5):407–24.PubMedCrossRef

80.

Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, Schad LR, Layer G, Lorenz WJ. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;15(4):621–8.PubMedCrossRef

81.

Tofts PS. Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(1):91–101.PubMedCrossRef

82.

Brix G, Schreiber W, Hoffmann U, Guckel F, Hawighorst H, Knopp MV. Methodological approaches to quantitative evaluation of microcirculation in tissues with dynamic magnetic resonance tomography. Radiologe. 1997;37(6):470–80.PubMedCrossRef

83.

Turkbey B, Thomasson D, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Choyke P. The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2010;16(3):186–92.PubMed

84.

Chen WT, Shih TT, Chen RC, et al. Vertebral bone marrow perfusion evaluated with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: significance of aging and sex. Radiology. 2001;220(1):213–8.PubMedCrossRef

85.

Hillengass J, Stieltjes B, Bauerle T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging of bone marrow in healthy individuals. Acta Radiol. 2011;52(3):324–30.PubMedCrossRef

86.

Montazel JL, Divine M, Lepage E, Kobeiter H, Breil S, Rahmouni A. Normal spinal bone marrow in adults: dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;229(3):703–9.PubMedCrossRef

87.

Baur A, Bartl R, Pellengahr C, Baltin V, Reiser M. Neovascularization of bone marrow in patients with diffuse multiple myeloma: a correlative study of magnetic resonance imaging and histopathologic findings. Cancer. 2004;101(11):2599–604.PubMedCrossRef

88.

Alyas F, Saifuddin A, Connell D. MR imaging evaluation of the bone marrow and marrow infiltrative disorders of the lumbar spine. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007;15(2):199–219. vi.PubMedCrossRef

89.

Savvopoulou V, Maris TG, Vlahos L, Moulopoulos LA. Differences in perfusion parameters between upper and lower lumbar vertebral segments with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI). Eur Radiol. 2008;18(9):1876–83.PubMedCrossRef

90.

Dwek JR, Shapiro F, Laor T, Barnewolt CE, Jaramillo D. Normal gadolinium-enhanced MR images of the developing appendicular skeleton.2. Epiphyseal and metaphyseal marrow. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(1):191–6.PubMedCrossRef

91.

Hillengass J, Zechmann C, Bauerle T, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging identifies a subgroup of patients with asymptomatic monoclonal plasma cell disease and pathologic microcirculation. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(9):3118–25.PubMedCrossRef

92.

Rajkumar SV, Mesa RA, Fonseca R, et al. Bone marrow angiogenesis in 400 patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, multiple myeloma, and primary amyloidosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(7):2210–6.PubMed

93.

Hillengass J, Ritsch J, Merz M, et al. Increased microcirculation detected by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is of prognostic significance in asymptomatic myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2016;174(1):127–35.PubMedCrossRef

94.

Jakob C, Sterz J, Zavrski I, et al. Angiogenesis in multiple myeloma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42(11):1581–90.PubMedCrossRef

95.

Sezer O, Niemoller K, Eucker J, et al. Bone marrow microvessel density is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2000;79(10):574–7.PubMedCrossRef

96.

Rajkumar SV, Leong T, Roche PC, et al. Prognostic value of bone marrow angiogenesis in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(8):3111–6.PubMed

97.

Rana C, Sharma S, Agrawal V, Singh U. Bone marrow angiogenesis in multiple myeloma and its correlation with clinicopathological factors. Ann Hematol. 2010;89(8):789–94.PubMedCrossRef

98.

Moehler TM, Hawighorst H, Neben K, et al. Bone marrow microcirculation analysis in multiple myeloma by contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cancer. 2001;93(6):862–8.PubMedCrossRef

99.

Zha Y, Li M, Yang J. Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of diffuse spinal bone marrow infiltration in patients with hematological malignancies. Korean J Radiol. 2010;11(2):187–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

100.

Hillengass J, Wasser K, Delorme S, et al. Lumbar bone marrow microcirculation measurements from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is a predictor of event-free survival in progressive multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(2 Pt 1):475–81.PubMedCrossRef

101.

Merz M, Moehler TM, Ritsch J, et al. Prognostic significance of increased bone marrow microcirculation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of a prospective DCE-MRI study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(5):1404–11.PubMedCrossRef

102.

Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, et al. Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;254(2):521–31.PubMedCrossRef

103.

Sezer O, Niemoller K, Jakob C, et al. Relationship between bone marrow angiogenesis and plasma cell infiltration and serum beta2-microglobulin levels in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2001;80(10):598–601.PubMedCrossRef

104.

Oh HS, Choi JH, Park CK, et al. Comparison of microvessel density before and after peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma patients and its clinical implications: multicenter trial. Int J Hematol. 2002;76(5):465–70.PubMedCrossRef

105.

Zwick S, Strecker R, Kiselev V, et al. Assessment of vascular remodeling under antiangiogenic therapy using DCE-MRI and vessel size imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29(5):1125–33.PubMedCrossRef

106.

Zechmann CM, Traine L, Meissner T, et al. Parametric histogram analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in multiple myeloma: a technique to evaluate angiogenic response to therapy? Acad Radiol. 2012;19(1):100–8.PubMedCrossRef

107.

Otake S, Mayr NA, Ueda T, Magnotta VA, Yuh WT. Radiation-induced changes in MR signal intensity and contrast enhancement of lumbosacral vertebrae: do changes occur only inside the radiation therapy field? Radiology. 2002;222(1):179–83.PubMedCrossRef

108.

Baur A, Stabler A, Bartl R, Lamerz R, Scheidler J, Reiser M. MRI gadolinium enhancement of bone marrow: age-related changes in normals and in diffuse neoplastic infiltration. Skeletal Radiol. 1997;26(7):414–8.PubMedCrossRef

109.

Moulopoulos LA, Maris TG, Papanikolaou N, Panagi G, Vlahos L, Dimopoulos MA. Detection of malignant bone marrow involvement with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(1):152–8.PubMedCrossRef

110.

Hillengass J, Stoll J, Zechmann CM, et al. The application of Gadopentate-Dimeneglumin has no impact on progression free and overall survival as well as renal function in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disorders if general precautions are taken. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(3):745–50.PubMedCrossRef

111.

Khoo MM, Tyler PA, Saifuddin A, Padhani AR. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal MRI: a critical review. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(6):665–81.PubMedCrossRef

112.

Padhani AR, van Ree K, Collins DJ, D’Sa S, Makris A. Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):163–70.PubMedCrossRef

113.

Messiou C, Kaiser M. Whole body diffusion weighted MRI: a new view of myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(1):29–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

114.

Messiou C, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Desouza NM. Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(8):1713–8.PubMedCrossRef

115.

Padhani AR, Koh DM, Collins DJ. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology. 2011;261(3):700–18.PubMedCrossRef

116.

Messiou C, Giles S, Collins DJ, et al. Assessing response of myeloma bone disease with diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1198–203.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

117.

Koh DM. Qualitative and quantitative analyses: image evaluation and interpretation. In: Koh DM, Thoeny HC, eds. Diffusion-Weighted MR imaging: applications in the body. Springer Science and Business Media; 2010. p. 33-47.

118.

Messiou C, deSouza NM. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of metastatic bone disease: a biomarker for treatment response monitoring. Cancer Biomark. 2010;6(1):21–32.PubMedCrossRef

119.

Nonomura Y, Yasumoto M, Yoshimura R, et al. Relationship between bone marrow cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(5):757–60.PubMedCrossRef

120.

Herneth AM, Friedrich K, Weidekamm C, et al. Diffusion weighted imaging of bone marrow pathologies. Eur J Radiol. 2005;55(1):74–83.PubMedCrossRef

121.

Herrmann J, Krstin N, Schoennagel BP, et al. Age-related distribution of vertebral bone-marrow diffusivity. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(12):4046–9.PubMedCrossRef

122.

Dietrich O, Geith T, Reiser MF, et al. Diffusion imaging of the vertebral bone marrow. NMR Biomed. 2015. doi:10.1002/nbm.3333.

123.

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(6):721–8.PubMedCrossRef

124.

Fenchel M, Konaktchieva M, Weisel K, et al. Early response assessment in patients with multiple myeloma during anti-angiogenic therapy using arterial spin labelling: first clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(12):2899–906.PubMedCrossRef

125.

Bonaffini PA, Ippolito D, Casiraghi A, Besostri V, Franzesi CT, Sironi S. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps integrated in whole-body MRI examination for the evaluation of tumor response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(9):1163–71.PubMedCrossRef

126.

Horger M, Weisel K, Horger W, Mroue A, Fenchel M, Lichy M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for early response monitoring in multiple myeloma: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):W790–5.PubMedCrossRef

127.

Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology. 2014;271(3):785–94.PubMedCrossRef

128.

Pratt G, Bowcock S, Chantry A, et al. Time to redefine myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef

129.

Bauerle 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):477–85.PubMedCrossRef

130.

Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):e538–48.PubMedCrossRef

131.

Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, et al. Stage III multiple myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology. 1998;209(3):653–60.PubMedCrossRef

132.

Pawlyn C, Fowkes L, Otero SJ, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI: a new gold standard for assessing disease burden in patients with multiple myeloma? Leukemia. 2016;30(6):1446–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

133.

Gertz MA. Advanced skeletal imaging redefines the management of plasma cell disorders. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):537–9.PubMedCrossRef

134.

Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A, Racanelli V. 18F-FDG PET/CT: a review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med. 2015;15(1):1–18.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of multiple myeloma
verfasst von: Julie C. Dutoit
Koenraad L. Verstraete
Publikationsdatum: 13.03.2017
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology / Ausgabe 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2609-6

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Whole-body MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging for the staging of multiple myeloma

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Mammakarzinom: Brustdichte beeinflusst rezidivfreies Überleben

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Update Radiologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

24th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR), Bari/Italy, June 15-17, 2017

A teenager presenting with pain and popliteal mass

Glomangiomatosis of the sciatic nerve: a case report and review of the literature

Ultrasound-guided therapeutic injections for neural pathology about the foot and ankle: a 4 year retrospective review

Erratum to: Imaging findings of anterior hip dislocations

Value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of gout in patients presenting with acute arthritis

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Mammakarzinom: Brustdichte beeinflusst rezidivfreies Überleben

„Übersichtlicher Wegweiser“: Lauterbachs umstrittener Klinik-Atlas ist online

Klinikreform soll zehntausende Menschenleben retten

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Update Radiologie