Advertisement

The Role of Anatomic and Functional Imaging in Myeloma

  • Brian G.M. Durie
Part of the Contemporary Hematology book series (CH)

Introduction

multiple myeloma is a heterogeneous disease which can present with or without overt symptomatology.1 The heterogeneity relates both to the intrinsic biology of the myeloma cells and bone marrow microenvironment and to systemic host responses to the myeloma.2 The patient's age, health status, and the time of presentation to the healthcare system all impact outcome.

In an effort to standardize the treatment approaches, it is essential to characterize the disease as clearly as possible at the time of diagnosis. The Durie/Salmon myeloma staging system was introduced in 1975 to permit easy clinical staging, which correlated with measured myeloma cell mass.3 This system has been widely used over the past 30 years. Despite the fact that classification based on the number and extent of bone lesions found on X-ray is observer dependent, the system has proved to be remarkably reliable.4,5Nonetheless, the availability of much more sensitive imaging techniques has mandated the...

Keywords

Myeloma Cell Indolent Disease Extramedullary Disease MIBI Imaging Soluble Receptor Activator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Durie BGM, Kyle RA, et al. Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J. 2003; 4: 379–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Durie BGM, Jacobson J, et al. Magnitude of response with myeloma frontline therapy does not predict outcome: importance of time to progression in Southwest Oncology Group chemotherapy trials. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(10): 1857–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Durie BGM, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Cancer 1975; 36: 842–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gahrton G, Durie BGM, et al. Multiple Myeloma and Related Disorders, The role of imaging in myeloma. Arnold 2004; 10: 155–63.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greipp PR, Durie BGM, et al. International sStaging sSystem for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(15): 3412–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyle RA, Schreiman JS, et al. Computer tomography in diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and its variants. Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145: 1451–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 2003; 290: 3199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Modic MT, Obuchowski N. Whole-body CT screening for cancer and coronary disease: does it pass the test? Cleveland Clin J Med 2004; 71(1): 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durie BGM, Waxman AD, et al. Whole Body F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43: 1457–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauer A, Stabler A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? Cancer. 2002; 95(6): 1334–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker R, Jones-Jackson L, et al. Diagnostic imaging of multiple myeloma-–FDG PET and MRI complementary for tracking short vs long term tumor response [abstract #758]. Blood. 2004; 104(11): 217a.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kusumoto S, Jinnai I, Itoh K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging patterns in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J of Haematol. 1997; 99: 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mariette X, Zagdanski AM, Guermazi A, et al. Prognostic value of vertebral sessions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stage I multiple myeloma. Br J of Haematol. 1999; 104: 723–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker R, Barlogie B, et al. Prospective evaluation of 460 patients from total therapy II - —identification of characteristics on baseline MRI examinations of prognostic significance - —importance of focal lesions (FL) in multiple myeloma (MM). Hematol J. 2003; 4: S171. Abstract 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schirmeister H, Bommer M, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18 F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002; 29: 361–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walker RC, Barlogie B, Shaughnessy J. DKK1 in myeloma: correlation with FDG-PET. New Engl J Med. 2004; 350(14): 1465–6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miceli M, Atoui R, Walker R, et al. Diagnosis of deep septic thrombophlebitis in cancer patients by fluorine-18 flurodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: a preliminary report. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(10): 1949–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, et al. A comparison of fluorine-18 fluoro-deox-yglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Europ J Haematol. 2004; 72(1): 32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fonti R, Vecchio S, Zannetti A, et al. Functional imaging of multidrug resistant pheno-type by 99mTcMIBI scan in patients with multiple myeloma. 2004; 19(2): 165–70.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Durie BGM, et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scanning in multiple myeloma (MM): comparison with PET (FDG) imaging. Blood 1996; 88: 10. Abstract 1559.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tirovola EB, Biassoni L, Britton KE, et al. The use of 99mTc-MIBI scanning in multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74: 1815–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Durie BGM, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A. A whole-body Tc-99m-MIBI scanning in the evaluation of multiple myeloma (MM). J Nucl Med. 1998; 39: 138.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaksic W, Trudel S, Chang H, et al. Clinical outcomes in t(4;14) multiple myeloma: a chemotherapy-sensitive disease characterized by rapid relapse and alkylating agent resistance. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(28): 7069–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dewald GW, Therneau T, et al. Relationship of patient survival and chromosome anomalies detected in metaphase and/or interphase cells at diagnosis of myeloma. Blood. 2005; 106(10): 3553–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Terpos E, Szydlo R, Apperley JF, et al. Soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor kB ligand-osteoprotegerin ratio predicts survival in multiple myeloma: proposal for a novel prognostic index. Blood. 2003; 102(3): 1064–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chim CS, Ooi GC, et al. Unusual presentations of hematologic malignancies: role of MRI and FDG-PET in evaluation of solitary plasmacytoma. J Clinic Oncol. 2004; 22(7): 1328–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Durie BGM. The roll of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: Description description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. European J of Cancer. 2006; 42:1539–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hillner BE, et al. Clinical decisions associated with positron emission tomography in a prospective cohort of patients with suspected or known cancer at one United States center. J Clinic Oncol. 2004; 22(20):4147–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker R, Barlogie B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clinic Oncol. 25(9):1121–28.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomsen HS. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: A serious late adverse reaction to gadodiamide. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16:2619–2621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moran GR, Pekar J, Bartolini M, et al. An Investigation of the toxicity of gadolinium based MRI contrast agents. Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med. 2002. 10.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swaminathan S, Horn T, Pellowski, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium, and iron mobilization. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(7): 720–722.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: Initial results from the national oncologic PET registry. J Clin Onco. 2008; 26(13). (Published ahead of print.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Salaun P-Y, Gastinne T, Frampas E, et al. FDG-positron-emission tomography for staging and therapeutic assessment in patients with plasmacytoma. Haematologica. 2008; 93(8):1269–1271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patel RR, Subramaniam RM, Mandrekar JN. Occult malignancy in patients with suspected paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes: value of positron emission tomography in diagnosis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008; 83(8):917–922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian G.M. Durie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/OncologyCedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations