European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 2333–2347 | Cite as

Prognostic significance of focal lesions and diffuse infiltration on MRI for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

  • So-Yeon Lee
  • Hyun-Jung Kim
  • Yu Ri Shin
  • Hee-Jin Park
  • Yun-Gyoo Lee
  • Suk Joong Oh
Magnetic Resonance
  • 335 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

MRI of bone marrow of the axial skeleton is recommended for evaluation of multiple myeloma. The impact of bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI for determining progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is not yet clear.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of research on the prognostic significance of MRI patterns for OS and PFS using a random effects model. Databases searched without language restriction were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (January 1976 to April 2014). Manual searches were also conducted.

Results

Of 10,953 citations identified in the original search, 10 cohort studies for a total of 2015 patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 10 included studies are from three research groups. Pooled hazard ratios were 1.80 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.32–2.46; P < 0.001) for OS and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.65–3.20; P < 0.001) for PFS for focal lesions on MRI; and 1.70 (95 % CI 1.30–2.21; P < 0.001) for OS and 1.74 (95 % CI 1.07–2.85; P = 0.03) for PFS for diffuse infiltration on MRI. No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated an association between focal lesions and diffuse infiltration and poor prognosis in this population.

Key Points

MRI findings of multiple myeloma include normal, focal, variegated and diffuse infiltration

Focal lesions and diffuse infiltration on MRI were poor prognostic factors

Bone marrow involvement pattern on MRI can help physicians assess prognosis

Keywords

Multiple myeloma MRI Prognosis Bone marrow Meta-analysis 

Abbreviations

CRAB

Hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia and bone lesions

CT

Computed tomography

HR

Hazard ratio

IMWG

International Myeloma Working Group

ISS

International staging system

MGUS

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

OS

Overall survival

PFS

Progression-free survival

QUIPS

Quality in prognosis studies

Notes

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hyun-Jung Kim. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Methodology: retrospective, performed at one institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM et al (2007) Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 356:2582–2590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cesana C, Klersy C, Barbarano L et al (2002) Prognostic factors for malignant transformation in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 20:1625–1634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber DM, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA et al (1997) Prognostic features of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 97:810–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dhodapkar MV, Sexton R, Waheed S et al (2014) Clinical, genomic, and imaging predictors of myeloma progression from asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies (SWOG S0120). Blood 123:78–85CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA et al (2010) Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 28:1606–1610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hillengass J, Weber MA, Kilk K et al (2014) Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia 28:174–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Merz M, Hielscher T, Wagner B et al (2014) Predictive value of longitudinal whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:1902–1908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG et al (2005) International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 23:3412–3420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E et al (2012) 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 87:861–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL et al (2009) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 114:2068–2076CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song MK, Chung JS, Lee JJ et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging pattern of bone marrow involvement as a new predictive parameter of disease progression in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. Br J Haematol 165:777–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 25:1121–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moulopoulos LA, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A et al (2005) Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 16:1824–1828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hillengass J, Ayyaz S, Kilk K et al (2012) Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 97:1757–1760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dimopoulos MA, Hillengass J, Usmani S et al (2015) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus statement. J Clin Oncol 33:657–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merz M, Moehler TM, Ritsch J et al (2016) Prognostic significance of increased bone marrow microcirculation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of a prospective DCE-MRI study. Eur Radiol 26:1404–1411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dutoit JC, Vanderkerken MA, Anthonissen J, Dochy F, Verstraete KL (2014) 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 24:2754–2765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF (1996) 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 167:1029–1036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C (2013) Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 158:280–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998) Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 17:2815–2834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waheed S, Mitchell A, Usmani S et al (2013) Standard and novel imaging methods for multiple myeloma: correlates with prognostic laboratory variables including gene expression profiling data. Haematologica 98:71–78CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL et al (2009) International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia 23:1545–1556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Christoulas D et al (2010) Diffuse MRI marrow pattern correlates with increased angiogenesis, advanced disease features and poor prognosis in newly diagnosed myeloma treated with novel agents. Leukemia 24:1206–1212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bender R, Bunce C, Clarke M et al (2008) Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 61:857–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • So-Yeon Lee
    • 1
  • Hyun-Jung Kim
    • 2
  • Yu Ri Shin
    • 3
  • Hee-Jin Park
    • 1
  • Yun-Gyoo Lee
    • 4
  • Suk Joong Oh
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung HospitalSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Preventive MedicineKorea University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung HospitalSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations