Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Skeletal Radiology
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 3/2018

01-03-2018 | Scientific Article

Comparison of qualitative and quantitative CT and MRI parameters for monitoring of longitudinal spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma

Authors: M. Horger, J. Fritz, W. M. Thaiss, H. Ditt, K. Weisel, M. Haap, Christopher Kloth

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To compare qualitative and quantitative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters for longitudinal disease monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) of the axial skeleton.

Materials and methods

We included 31 consecutive patients (17 m; mean age 59.20 ± 8.08 years) with MM, who underwent all baseline (n = 31) and at least one or more (n = 47) follow-up examinations consisting of multi-parametric non-enhanced whole-body MRI (WBMRI) and non-enhanced whole-body reduced-dose thin-section MDCT (NEWBMDCT) between 06/2013 and 09/2016. We classified response according to qualitative CT criteria into progression (PD), stable(SD), partial/very good partial (PR/VGPR) and complete response(CR), grouping the latter three together for statistical analysis because CT cannot reliably assess PR and CR. Qualitative MR-response criteria were defined and grouped similarly to CT using longitudinal quantification of signal-intensity changes on T1w/STIR/ T2*w and calculating ADC-values. Standard of reference was the hematological laboratory (M-gradient).

Results

Hematological response categories were CR (14/47, 29.7%), PR (2/47, 4.2%), SD (16/47, 34.0%) and PD (15/47, 29.9%). Qualitative-CT-evaluation showed PD in 12/47 (25.5%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 35/47 (74.5%) cases. These results were confirmed by quantitative-CT in all focal lytic lesions (p < 0.001). Quantitative-CT at sites with diffuse bone involvement showed significant increase of maximum bone attenuation (p < 0.001*) and significant decrease of minimal bone (p < 0.002*) in the SD/PR/VGPR/CR group. Qualitative MRI showed PD in 14/47 (29.7%) and SD/PR/VGPR/CR in 33/47 (70.3%). Quantitative MRI diagnosis showed a statistically significant decrease in signal intensity on short tau inversion recovery sequences (STIR) in bone marrow in patients with diffuse bone marrow involvement achieving SD/PR/VGPR/CR (p < 0.001*).

Conclusion

Imaging response monitoring using MRI is superior to CT only if qualitative parameters are used, whereas there was no definite benefit from using quantitative parameters with either CT or MRI.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, Deux JF, Kuhnowski F, Maatouk M, et al. Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;254(2):521–31.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Ferraro R, Agarwal A, Martin-Macintosh EL, Peller PJ, Subramaniam RM. MR imaging and PET/CT in diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma. Radiographics. 2015;35(2):438–54.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dimopoulos MA, Hillengass J, Usmani S, Zamagni E, Lentzsch S, Davies FE, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus statement. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):657–64.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Anagnostopoulos A, Hamilos G, Zorzou MP, Grigoraki V, Anagnostou D, Dimopoulos MA. Discordant response or progression in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide-based regimens. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45(1):113–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
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(3):842–54.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Dutoit JC, Claus E, Offner F, Noens L, Delanghe J, Verstraete KL. Combined evaluation of conventional MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging for response evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(2):373–82.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Terpos E, Kleber M, Engelhardt M, Zweegman S, Gay F, Kastritis E, et al. European myeloma network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications. Haematologica. 2015;100(10):1254–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Mangiacavalli S, Pezzatti S, Rossini F, Doni E, Cocito F, Bolis S, et al. Implemented myeloma management with whole-body low-dose CT scan: a real life experience. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(7):1539–45.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Sachpekidis C, Mosebach J, Freitag MT, Wilhelm T, Mai EK, Goldschmidt H, et al. Application of (18)F-FDG PET and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in multiple myeloma: comparison of functional imaging modalities. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;5(5):479–92.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B, Vonthein R, Pereira P, Claussen CD, 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(8):1617–26.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Koutoulidis V, Fontara S, Terpos E, Zagouri F, Matsaridis D, Christoulas D, et al. 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. 2017;282(2):484–93.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, Golli M, Haioun C, Dao T, et al. MR appearance of multiple myeloma of the spine before and after treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(5):1053–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Horger M, Thaiss WM, Ditt H, Weisel K, Fritz J, Nikolaou K et al. Improved MDCT monitoring of pelvic myeloma bone disease through the use of a novel longitudinal bone subtraction post-processing algorithm. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2969–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00330-016-4642-6.
17.
Horger M, Pereira P, Claussen CD, Kanz L, Vonthein R, Denecke B, et al. Hyperattenuating bone marrow abnormalities in myeloma patients using whole-body non-enhanced low-dose MDCT: correlation with haematological parameters. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(965):386–96.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Viola P, Wells W. Alignment by maximization of mutual information. Int J Comput Vis. 1997;24(2):137–54.CrossRef
19.
Viola P, Jones M. Robust real-time face detection. Int J Comput Vis. 2004;57(2):137–54.CrossRef
20.
Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R, et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):1097–104.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Durie BG, Kyle RA, Belch A, Bensinger W, Blade J, Boccadoro M, et al. Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the scientific advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J. 2003;4(6):379–98.CrossRefPubMed
22.
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(5):749–57.CrossRef
23.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Schabel C, Horger M, Kum S, Weisel K, Fritz J, Ioanoviciu SD, et al. Simplified response monitoring criteria for multiple myeloma in patients undergoing therapy with novel agents using computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(12):2195–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bannas P, Hentschel HB, Bley TA, Treszl A, Eulenburg C, Derlin T, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body MRI for the detection of persistent or relapsing disease in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol 2012;22(9):2007–12.
26.
Khoo MM, Tyler PA, Saifuddin A, Padhani AR. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal MRI: a critical review. Skelet Radiol. 2011;40(6):665–81.CrossRef
27.
Horger M, Weisel K, Horger W, Mroue A, Fenchel M, Lichy M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for early response monitoring in multiple myeloma: preliminary results. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):W790–5.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of qualitative and quantitative CT and MRI parameters for monitoring of longitudinal spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma
Authors
M. Horger
J. Fritz
W. M. Thaiss
H. Ditt
K. Weisel
M. Haap
Christopher Kloth
Publication date
01-03-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2827-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Skeletal Radiology 3/2018 Go to the issue

Skeletal Radiology: The Year in Review

Skeletal Radiology: The Year in Review 2017

Scientific Article

Magnetic resonance imaging-based morphological and alignment assessment of the patellofemoral joint and its relationship to proximal patellar tendinopathy

Scientific Article

Early detection of metastases using whole-body MRI for initial staging and routine follow-up of myxoid liposarcoma

Case Report

Hyaline fibromatosis syndrome (juvenile hyaline fibromatosis): whole-body MR findings in two siblings with different subcutaneous nodules distribution

Case Report

Primary synovial chondromatosis of the subtalar joint: case report and review of the literature

Case Report

Muscular sarcoidosis involving the chest and abdominal walls: case report with MR imaging