Current and future imaging modalities for multiple myeloma and its precursor states

References

• Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shortt CP, Carty F, Murray JG. The role of whole-body imaging in the diagnosis, staging, and follow-up of multiple myeloma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2010;14:37–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winterbottom AP, Shaw AS. Imaging patients with myeloma. Clin Radiol 2009;64:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol 1967;18:158–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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;178:1429–1436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;354:496–507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breyer RJ3rd, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, et al. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2006;35:632–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:361–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, et al. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1199–1204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig H, Kumpan W, Sinzinger H. Radiography and bone scintigraphy in multiple myeloma: a comparative analysis. Br J Radiol 1982;55:173–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Even-Sapir E, Mishani E, Flusser G, et al. 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2007;37:462–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R, et al. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004;231:11–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinter DJ, Neff WK, 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;88:457–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ak I, Aslan V, Vardareli E, et al. Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile bone marrow imaging for predicting the levels of myeloma cells in bone marrow in multiple myeloma: correlation with CD38/CD138 expressing myeloma cells. Ann Hematol 2003;82:88–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lette J, Cerino M, Demaria S, et al. Serendipitous diagnosis of multiple myeloma during sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging. Clin Nucl Med 2002;27:832–833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maffioli L, Steens J, Pauwels E, et al. Applications of 99mTc-sestamibi in oncology. Tumori 1996;82:12–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pace L, Catalano L, Pinto A, et al. Different patterns of technetium-99m sestamibi uptake in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:714–720.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Catalano L, Pace L, Califano C, et al. Detection of focal myeloma lesions by technetium-99m-sestaMIBI scintigraphy. Haematologica 1999;84:119–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams BK, Fataar A, Nizami MA. Technetium-99m-sestamibi uptake in myeloma. J Nucl Med 1996;37:1001–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, et al. Multiple myeloma: molecular imaging with 11C-methionine PET/CT–initial experience. Radiology 2007;242:498–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006;20:1467–1473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA, Sezer O. The effect of novel anti-myeloma agents on bone metabolism of patients with multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2007;21:1875–1884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadvar H, Conti PS. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2002;31:690–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mele A, Offidani M, Visani G, et al. Technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy is sensitive and specific for the staging and the follow-up of patients with multiple myeloma: a multicentre study on 397 scans. Br J Haematol 2007;136:729–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choyke PL, Dwyer AJ, Knopp MV. Functional tumor imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;17:509–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brix G, Semmler W, Port R, et al. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:621–628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, et al. Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2010;254:521–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greipp PR, San MiguelJ, Durie BG, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3412–3420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bataille R, Durie BG, Grenier J, et al. Prognostic factors and staging in multiple myeloma: a reappraisal. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart AK, Bergsagel PL, Greipp PR, et al. A practical guide to defining high-risk myeloma for clinical trials, patient counseling and choice of therapy. Leukemia 2007;21:529–534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusumoto S, Jinnai I, Itoh K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging patterns in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997;99:649–655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellani M, Carletto M, Baldini L, et al. The prognostic value of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose bone marrow uptake in patients with recent diagnosis of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with Tc-99m sestamibi. Clin Nucl Med 2010;35:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;13:475–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM, et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood 2009;113:5412–5417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss BM, Abadie J, Verma P, et al. A monoclonal gammopathy precedes multiple myeloma in most patients. Blood 2009;113:5418–5422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM, et al. Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2582–2590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folkman J, Watson K, Ingber D, et al. Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia. Nature 1989;339:58–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;8:2210–2216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Leong T, Roche PC, et al. Prognostic value of bone marrow angiogenesis in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:3111–3116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sezer O, Niemöller K, Eucker J, et al. Bone marrow microvessel density is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2000;79:574–547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munshi NC, Wilson C. Increased bone marrow microvessel density in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma carries a poor prognosis. Semin Oncol 2001;28:565–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [?twb=.45w]Vacca A, Ribatti D, Roncali L, et al. Bone marrow angiogenesis and progression in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1994;87:503–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellaïche L, Laredo JD, Lioté F, et al. Magnetic resonance appearance of monoclonal gammopathies of unknown significance and multiple myeloma. The GRI Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:2551–2557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillengass J, Zechmann C, Bäuerle 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;15:3118–3125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CPT Search. 8 March 2011. Available from: https://catalog.ama-assn.org/Catalog/cpt/cpt_search.jsp
   Google Scholar