Advertisement

Multiple Myeloma: The Role of Imaging in Staging and Restaging

  • Lia A. Moulopoulos
Chapter

Abstract

Bone disease is one of the CRAB criteria (hypercalcemia, renal impairment, anemia, and bone lesions) which define symptomatic multiple myeloma (myeloma requiring treatment) and has been part of its staging since 1975, when the Durie-Salmon staging system was introduced. Conventional skeletal surveys (radiographs of the spine, pelvis, chest, skull, humeri, and femora) have been traditionally used to detect myeloma bone disease. The presence of three or more osteolyses, defined stage III myeloma, which required treatment. Several studies have, however, shown that Whole-Body Computed-Tomography (WBCT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), FDG-Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET), and FDG-PET/CT may identify 80% more focal lesions in myeloma patients compared to a conventional skeletal survey (CSS) [1]. As a result, in 2003, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) suggested that findings of both CT and MRI might fulfill the CRAB criteria for multiple myeloma [2]. The same year, MRI and FDG-PET were introduced to the Durie-Salmon PLUS staging system, which did not include any laboratory data apart from creatinine values, but was based on the number of focal bone marrow lesions larger than 5 mm and the extent of diffuse bone marrow involvement on these two imaging modalities. In 2014, the IMWG recommended that FDG-PET/CT, WBCT, WBMRI, or MRI of the axial skeleton, depending on availability, be performed in all patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma (SMM) [1].

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-e548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Myeloma Working Group (2003) Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the international myeloma working group. Br J Haematol 121:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G et al (2002) Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. Am J Roentgenol 178:1429–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U et al (2005) Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiol 54:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C et al (2008) Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. Am J Roentgenol 190(4):1097–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kröpil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB et al (2008) Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 18(1):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hillengass J, Moulopoulos LA, Delorme S et al (2017) Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood Cancer J 7:e599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horger M, Pereira P, Claussen CD et al (2008) Hyperattenuating bone marrow abnormalities in myeloma patients using whole-body non-enhanced low-dose MDCT: correlation with haematological parameters. Br J Radiol 81(965):386–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borggrefe J, Giravent S, Campbell G et al (2015) Association of osteolytic lesions, bone mineral loss and trabecular sclerosis with prevalent vertebral fractures in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 84:2269–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feng SW, Chang MC, Wu HT et al (2011) Are intravertebral vacuum phenomena benign lesions? Eur Spine J 20:1341–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA et al (1992) Multiple myeloma: spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 185:833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 25:1121–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bäuerle T, Hillengass J, Fechtner K et al (2009) Multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: importance of whole-body versus spinal MR imaging. Radiology 252:477–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moulopoulos LA, Koutoulidis V (2015) Bone marrow MRI. A pattern-based approach. Springer Verlag, ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koutoulidis V, Fontara S, Terpos E et al (2017) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the bone marrow: an adjunct tool for the diagnosis of a diffuse MR imaging pattern in patients with multiple myeloma. Radiology 282:484–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bourillon C, Rahmouni A, Lin C et al (2015) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging of multiple myeloma lesions: correlation with whole-body dynamic contrast agent–enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 277(3):773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F et al (2007) 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 92:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 33:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cho WI, Chang UK (2011) Comparison of MR imaging and FDG-PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures. J Neurosurg Spine 14:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thawait SK, Marcus MA, Morrison WB et al (2012) Research synthesis: what is the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging to discriminate benign from malignant vertebral compression fractures? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:E736–E744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Major NM, Helms CA, Richardson WJ et al (2000) The “mini brain” plasmacytoma in in a vertebral body on MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 175:261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Weber D et al (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of solitary plasmacytoma of bone. J Clin Oncol 11:1311–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hillengass J, Weber M-A, Kilk K et al (2014) Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia 28:174–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 in newly diagnosed symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma: a single center experience on 228 patients. Am J Hematol 87:861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C et al (2011) Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 118:5989–5995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giles SL, Messiou C, Collins DJ et al (2014) Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology 271:785–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K et al (2015) PET/CT improves the definition of complete response and allows to detect otherwise unidentifiable skeletal progression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 21(19):4384–4390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C et al (2017) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a cosensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol 18:e206–e217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Athens Medical School, Areteion HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations