Challenges and opportunities of novel imaging techniques in monoclonal plasma cell disorders: imaging “early myeloma”

References

• 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
• 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;121:749–757.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson K, Astrom G, Nyman R, et al. MR imaging of multiple myeloma in tumour mass measurement at diagnosis and during treatment. Acta Radiol 1995;36:9–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;22:154–162.
   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
• 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.
   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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;97:1757–1760.
   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
• 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.
   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
• Landgren O, Waxman AJ. Multiple myeloma precursor disease. JAMA 2010;304:2397–2404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith DB, Scarffe JH, Eddleston B. The prognostic significance of X-ray changes at presentation and reassessment in patients with multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol 1988;6:1–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li SD, Wang YF, Qi JY, et al. Clinical features of bone complications and prognostic value of bone lesions detected by X-ray skeletal survey in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2010;26:83–88.
   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
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• Kyle RA, Schreiman JS, McLeod RA, et al. Computed tomography in diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and its variants. Arch Intern Med 1985;145:1451–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delforge M, Terpos E, Richardson PG, et al. Fewer bone disease events, improvement in bone remodeling, and evidence of bone healing with bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone vs. melphalan-prednisone in the phase III VISTA trial in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2011;86:372–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozaki S, Tanaka O, Fujii S, et al. Therapy with bortezomib plus dexamethasone induces osteoblast activation in responsive patients with multiple myeloma. Int J Hematol 2007;86:180–185.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terpos E, Kastritis E, Roussou M, et al. The combination of bortezomib, melphalan, dexamethasone and intermittent thalidomide is an effective regimen for relapsed/refractory myeloma and is associated with improvement of abnormal bone metabolism and angiogenesis. Leukemia 2008;22:2247–2256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zangari M, Terpos E, Zhan F, et al. Impact of bortezomib on bone health in myeloma: a review of current evidence. Cancer Treat Rev 2012;38:968–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greipp PR, Lust JA, O’Fallon WM, et al. Plasma cell labeling index and beta 2-microglobulin predict survival independent of thymidine kinase and C-reactive protein in multiple myeloma. Blood 1993;81:3382–3387.
   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
• Haznedar R, Aki SZ, Akdemir OU, et al. Value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting survival in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:1046–1053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agool A, Schot BW, Jager PL, et al. 18F-FLT PET in hematologic disorders: a novel technique to analyze the bone marrow compartment. J Nucl Med 2006;47:1592–1598.
   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
• 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;190:1097–1104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, et al. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1005–1014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 477–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 1206–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cerny J, Fadare O, Hutchinson L, Wang SA. Clinicopathological features of extramedullary recurrence/relapse of multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2008;81:65–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baur A, Stabler A, Bruning R, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of bone marrow: differentiation of benign versus pathologic compression fractures. Radiology 1998;207:349–356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, et al. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988;168:497–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood JD, Lev MH, Wintermark M, et al. Correlation of early dynamic CT perfusion imaging with whole-brain MR diffusion and perfusion imaging in acute hemispheric stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1869–1875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1622–1635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, et al. 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: 1029–1036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herneth AM, Naude J, Philipp M, et al. [The value of diffusion-weighted MRT in assessing the bone marrow changes in vertebral metastases]. Radiologe 2000;40:731–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonomura Y, Yasumoto M, Yoshimura R, et al. Relationship between bone marrow cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:757–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan JH, Peh WC, Tsui EY, et al. Acute vertebral body compression fractures: discrimination between benign and malignant causes using apparent diffusion coefficients. Br J Radiol 2002;75:207–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baur A, Stabler A, Arbogast S, et al. Acute osteoporotic and neoplastic vertebral compression fractures: fluid sign at MR imaging. Radiology 2002;225:730–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR, et al. Toward an optimal distribution of b values for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2011;29:766–776.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu X, Ma L, Zhang JS, et al. Feasibility of whole body diffusion weighted imaging in detecting bone metastasis on 3.0T MR scanner. Chin Med Sci J 2008;23:151–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Padhani AR, Koh DM. Diffusion MR imaging for monitoring of treatment response. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2011;19: 181–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann U, Brix G, Knopp MV, et al. Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic MR mammography. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33:506–514.
   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
• Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med 1991;17:357–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson HB, Stubgaard M, Frederiksen JL, et al. Quantitation of blood-brain barrier defect by magnetic resonance imaging and gadolinium-DTPA in patients with multiple sclerosis and brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 1990;16:117–131.
   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
• 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;15:3118–3125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer A, Wittsack HJ, Strupp C, et al. Vertebral fractures in multiple myeloma: first results of assessment of fracture risk using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Hematol 2002;81:517–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hylton N. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3293–3298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasser K, Moehler T, Neben K, et al. [Dynamic MRI of the bone marrow for monitoring multiple myeloma during treatment with thalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with CED chemotherapy]. Rofo 2004;176:1285–1295.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Takasu M, Tani C, Sakoda Y, et al. Iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of multiple myeloma: initial clinical efficiency results. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1114–1121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiman JS, McLeod RA, Kyle RA, et al. Multiple myeloma: evaluation by CT. Radiology 1985;154:483–486.
   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
• Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, et al. Comparative study of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of spinal bone marrow infiltration in untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Radiol 2008;49:427–435.
   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
• Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA, et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:980–986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korde N, Kristinsson SY, Landgren O. Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM): novel biological insights and development of early treatment strategies. Blood. 2011;117:5573–5581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Korde N. Treating myeloma: the future is already here! Blood 2012;120:1754–1756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar