Multiple Myeloma: How to Use Modern Imaging in Every Day Clinical Practice?

  • Evangelos TerposEmail author


Clinical experience with advanced imaging techniques in the management of multiple myeloma (MM) has sufficiently progressed to the point that they are now recommended for expanded use outside of the clinical trial setting for the diagnosis of MM requiring treatment, as well as to assess response to treatment where imaging has the potential to provide valuable prognostic information. However, not all advanced imaging strategies provide equivalent value under all circumstances but rather have demonstrable intrinsic and extrinsic value, as well as limitations, depending upon the specific circumstances in which they are being used. This discussion focuses on the various expanded uses of imaging strategies in community MM practice today while noting the strengths and limitations of each.


  1. 1.
    Terpos E, Kleber M, Engelhardt M et al (2015) European myeloma network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications. Haematologica 100:1254–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 23:1545–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kropil 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 18:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP et al (2009) 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). Skelet Radiol 38:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pianko MJ, Terpos E, Roodman GD et al (2014) Whole-body low-dose computed tomography and advanced imaging techniques for multiple myeloma bone disease. Clin Cancer Res 20:5888–5897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E et al (2013) Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Br J Haematol 162:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zamagni E, Nanni C, Gay F et al (2016) 18F-FDG PET/CT focal, but not osteolytic, lesions predict the progression of smoldering myeloma to active disease. Leukemia 30:417–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siontis B, Kumar S, Dispenzieri A et al (2015) Positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the diagnostic evaluation of smoldering multiple myeloma: identification of patients needing therapy. Blood Cancer J 5:e364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A et al (2016) Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 consensus statement by the international myeloma working group. Lancet Oncol 18:e206–e217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    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 28:1606–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kastritis E, Moulopoulos LA, Terpos E et al (2014) The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:2402–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C et al (2008) Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1097–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 98:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A et al (2012) Contrast enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol 81:4013–4018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 24:1206–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Moreau P, Attal M, Karlin L et al (2015) Prospective evaluation of MRI and PET-CT at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with Multiple Myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Blood 126:395. (ASH abstract)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Therapeutics, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations