Top

Published in:

01-01-2020 | Multiple Myeloma | Original Article

Visual and volumetric parameters by 18F-FDG-PET/CT: a head to head comparison for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma

Authors: Rosa Fonti, Sara Pellegrino, Lucio Catalano, Fabrizio Pane, Silvana Del Vecchio, Leonardo Pace

Published in: Annals of Hematology | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

In multiple myeloma (MM) patients, 18F-FDG-PET/CT allows either the detection of disease spread by using visual parameters based on the Italian Myeloma criteria for PET Use (IMPeTUs) or the direct measurement of metabolic tumor burden by volume-based parameters such as metabolic tumor volume (MTV). The purpose is to evaluate the contribution of visual and volumetric parameters in the prediction of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in MM patients. Forty-seven patients in stage IIIA who had undergone whole-body 18F-FDG-PET/CT were retrospectively evaluated. In each patient, visual parameters were determined and compared with volumetric parameters for PFS and OS prediction after a mean follow-up period of 53 months. Among the visual and volumetric parameters tested, a statistically significant difference was found between maximum standardized uptake value, MTV, total lesion glycolysis, and number of lytic lesions of patients with (n = 26) or without (n = 21) progression (p = 0.0400, p = 0.0065, p = 0.015, and p = 0.0220, respectively) and of dead (n = 24) vs survivors (n = 23) (p = 0.0171, p = 0.0037, p = 0.0060, and p = 0.0270, respectively). At univariate and multivariate analysis, MTV and hemoglobin were predictive of both PFS (p = 0.008) and OS (p = 0.0026). The best MTV discriminative value assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for predicting both PFS and OS was 39.4 ml. By Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test, PFS and OS were significantly better in patients with MTV ≤ 39.4 ml (p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0001, respectively) as compared with those having an MTV higher than the cutoff. The volume-based parameter MTV determined by 18F-FDG-PET/CT may be used in the prediction of PFS and OS in myeloma patients.

Chantry A, Kazmi M, Barrington S, Goh V, Mulholland N, Streetly M, Lai M, Pratt G, British Society for Haematology G (2017) Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of patients with myeloma. Br J Haematol 178:380–393CrossRef

Rajkumar SV (2018) Multiple myeloma: 2018 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol 93:981–1114CrossRef

Durie BG, Salmon SE (1975) A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer 36:842–854CrossRef

Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, Crowley JJ, Barlogie B, Blade J, Boccadoro M, Child JA, Avet-Loiseau H, Kyle RA, Lahuerta JJ, Ludwig H, Morgan G, Powles R, Shimizu K, Shustik C, Sonneveld P, Tosi P, Turesson I, Westin J (2005) International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 23:3412–3420CrossRef

Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, Richardson P, Caltagirone S, Lahuerta JJ, Facon T, Bringhen S, Gay F, Attal M, Passera R, Spencer A, Offidani M, Kumar S, Musto P, Lonial S, Petrucci MT, Orlowski RZ, Zamagni E, Morgan G, Dimopoulos MA, Durie BG, Anderson KC, Sonneveld P, San Miguel J, Cavo M, Rajkumar SV, Moreau P (2015) Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 33:2863–2869CrossRef

Jung SH, Kwon SY, Min JJ, Bom HS, Ahn SY, Jung SY, Lee SS, Park MR, Yang DH, Ahn JS, Kim HJ, Lee JJ (2019) (18)F-FDG PET/CT is useful for determining survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma classified as stage II and III with the Revised International Staging System. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:107–115CrossRef

Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, Mateos MV, Lonial S, Joao C, Anderson KC, Garcia-Sanz R, Riva E, Du J, van de Donk N, Berdeja JG, Terpos E, Zamagni E, Kyle RA, San Miguel J, Goldschmidt H, Giralt S, Kumar S, Raje N, Ludwig H, Ocio E, Schots R, Einsele H, Schjesvold F, Chen WM, Abildgaard N, Lipe BC, Dytfeld D, Wirk BM, Drake M, Cavo M, Lahuerta JJ, Lentzsch S (2019) International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol 20:e302–e312CrossRef

Ripani D, Caldarella C, Za T, Pizzuto DA, Rossi E, De Stefano V, Giordano A (2019) Prognostic significance of normalized FDG-PET parameters in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing induction chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a retrospective single-center evaluation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46:116–128CrossRef

Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV (2009) Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 23:3–9CrossRef

10.

Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, Shaughnessy JD Jr, van Rhee F, Anaissie E, Alpe T, Angtuaco E, Walker R, Epstein J, Crowley J, Barlogie B (2009) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 114:2068–2076CrossRef

11.

Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, Chari A, Jagannath S, Kostakoglu L (2014) State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings. Eur J Radiol 83:2203–2223CrossRef

12.

Li Y, Liu J, Huang B, Chen M, Diao X, Li J (2017) Application of PET/CT in treatment response evaluation and recurrence prediction in patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma. Oncotarget 8:25637–25649PubMed

13.

Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, Rensi M, Bello M, Rambaldi I, Gallamini A, Patriarca F, Gay F, Gamberi B, Cavo M, Fanti S (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 43:414–421CrossRef

14.

Nanni C, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bertone E, Bianchi A, Rensi M, Bello M, Gallamini A, Patriarca F, Gay F, Gamberi B, Ghedini P, Cavo M, Fanti S, Zamagni E (2018) Interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma (IMPeTUs): final results. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45:712–719CrossRef

15.

Barrington SF, Kluge R (2017) FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:97–110CrossRef

16.

Zamagni E, Nanni C, Dozza L, Carlier T, Tacchetti P, Versari A, Chauvie S, Gallamini A, Attal M, Gamberi B, Caillot D, Patriarca F, Macro M, Boccadoro M, Garderet L, Fanti S, Perrot A, Gay F, Sonneveld P, Karlin L, Cavo M, Bodet-Milin C, Moreau P, Kraeber-Bodere F. Standardization of 18F-FDG PET/CT according to Deauville criteria for MRD evaluation in newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients: joined analysis of two prospective randomized phase III trials. Blood 2018

17.

Haznedar R, Aki SZ, Akdemir OU, Ozkurt ZN, Ceneli O, Yagci M, Sucak GT, Unlu M (2011) Value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting survival in multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1046–1053CrossRef

18.

Zamagni E, Cavo M (2012) The role of imaging techniques in the management of multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 159:499–513PubMed

19.

Fonti R, Pace L, Cerchione C, Catalano L, Salvatore B, De Luca S, Pane F, Salvatore M, Del Vecchio S (2015) 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in the prediction of outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: a comparative study. Clin Nucl Med 40:303–308CrossRef

20.

Tu H, He Y, Huang T, Choe S, Lan X, Duan X, Sattar H, Li C, Zhou F (2018) Predictive value of (18) F-FDG PET/CT scanning in combination with clinical parameters in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 100:189–197CrossRef

21.

Fonti R, Larobina M, Del Vecchio S, De Luca S, Fabbricini R, Catalano L, Pane F, Salvatore M, Pace L (2012) Metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 53:1829–1835CrossRef

22.

McDonald JE, Kessler MM, Gardner MW, Buros AF, Ntambi JA, Waheed S, van Rhee F, Zangari M, Heuck CJ, Petty N, Schinke C, Thanendrarajan S, Mitchell A, Hoering A, Barlogie B, Morgan GJ, Davies FE (2017) Assessment of Total lesion glycolysis by (18)F FDG PET/CT significantly improves prognostic value of GEP and ISS in myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 23:1981–1987CrossRef

23.

Durie BG, Kyle RA, Belch A, Bensinger W, Blade J, Boccadoro M, Child JA, Comenzo R, Djulbegovic B, Fantl D, Gahrton G, Harousseau JL, Hungria V, Joshua D, Ludwig H, Mehta J, Morales AR, Morgan G, Nouel A, Oken M, Powles R, Roodman D, San Miguel J, Shimizu K, Singhal S, Sirohi B, Sonneveld P, Tricot G, Van Ness B, Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma F (2003) Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J 4:379–398CrossRef

24.

Smith A, Wisloff F, Samson D, UKM F, Nordic Myeloma Study G, British Committee for Standards in H (2006) Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma 2005. Br J Haematol 132:410–451CrossRef

25.

Terpos E, Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA (2011) Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone disease. J Clin Oncol 29:1907–1915CrossRef

26.

Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, Zannetti B, Englaro E, Pezzi A, Tacchetti P, Buttignol S, Perrone G, Brioli A, Pantani L, Terragna C, Carobolante F, Baccarani M, Fanin R, Fanti S, Cavo M (2011) Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 118:5989–5995CrossRef

27.

Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M, Sirignano C, Segreto S, Petruzziello F, Catalano L, Liuzzi R, Rotoli B, Del Vecchio S, Pace L, Salvatore M (2008) 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 49:195–200CrossRef

28.

Kumar SK, Callander NS, Alsina M, Atanackovic D, Biermann JS, Chandler JC, Costello C, Faiman M, Fung HC, Gasparetto C, Godby K, Hofmeister C, Holmberg L, Holstein S, Huff CA, Kassim A, Liedtke M, Martin T, Omel J, Raje N, Reu FJ, Singhal S, Somlo G, Stockerl-Goldstein K, Treon SP, Weber D, Yahalom J, Shead DA, Kumar R (2017) Multiple Myeloma, Version 3.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 15:230–269CrossRef

29.

Caers J, Garderet L, Kortum KM, O’Dwyer ME, van de Donk N, Binder M, Dold SM, Gay F, Corre J, Beguin Y, Ludwig H, Larocca A, Driessen C, Dimopoulos MA, Boccadoro M, Gramatzki M, Zweegman S, Einsele H, Cavo M, Goldschmidt H, Sonneveld P, Delforge M, Auner HW, Terpos E, Engelhardt M (2018) European Myeloma Network recommendations on tools for the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma: what to use and when. Haematologica 103:1772–1784CrossRef

30.

Berghmans T, Dusart M, Paesmans M, Hossein-Foucher C, Buvat I, Castaigne C, Scherpereel A, Mascaux C, Moreau M, Roelandts M, Alard S, Meert AP, Patz EF Jr, Lafitte JJ, Sculier JP, European Lung Cancer Working Party for the ILCSP (2008) Primary tumor standardized uptake value (SUVmax) measured on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is of prognostic value for survival in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) by the European Lung Cancer Working Party for the IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project. J Thorac Oncol 3:6–12CrossRef

31.

Chatterton BE, Ho Shon I, Baldey A, Lenzo N, Patrikeos A, Kelley B, Wong D, Ramshaw JE, Scott AM (2009) Positron emission tomography changes management and prognostic stratification in patients with oesophageal cancer: results of a multicentre prospective study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:354–361CrossRef

32.

Xie P, Li M, Zhao H, Sun X, Fu Z, Yu J (2011) 18F-FDG PET or PET-CT to evaluate prognosis for head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 137:1085–1093CrossRef

33.

Namura K, Minamimoto R, Yao M, Makiyama K, Murakami T, Sano F, Hayashi N, Tateishi U, Ishigaki H, Kishida T, Miura T, Kobayashi K, Noguchi S, Inoue T, Kubota Y, Nakaigawa N (2010) Impact of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) evaluated by 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) on survival for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a preliminary report. BMC Cancer 10:667CrossRef

34.

Deng S, Zhang B, Zhou Y, Xu X, Li J, Sang S, Zhang W (2018) The role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma staging according to IMPeTUs: comparison of the Durie-Salmon plus and other staging systems. CMMI 2018:4198673PubMed

35.

Van de Wiele C, Kruse V, Smeets P, Sathekge M, Maes A (2013) Predictive and prognostic value of metabolic tumour volume and total lesion glycolysis in solid tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:290–301CrossRef

36.

Barrington SF, Meignan M (2019) Time to prepare for risk adaptation in lymphoma by standardizing measurement of metabolic tumor burden. J Nucl Med 60:1096–1102CrossRef

37.

Gallamini A (2019) In search of platinum meter bar for measurement of metabolic tumor volume in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 60:1094–1095CrossRef

38.

Aide N, Lasnon C, Veit-Haibach P, Sera T, Sattler B, Boellaard R (2017) EANM/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:17–31CrossRef

Title: Visual and volumetric parameters by 18F-FDG-PET/CT: a head to head comparison for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma
Authors: Rosa Fonti
Sara Pellegrino
Lucio Catalano
Fabrizio Pane
Silvana Del Vecchio
Leonardo Pace
Publication date: 01-01-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Multiple Myeloma
Published in: Annals of Hematology / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0939-5555
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0584
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-019-03852-2

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

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.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Erythroferrone, the new iron regulator: evaluation of its levels in Egyptian patients with beta thalassemia

Prognostic significance of FDG-PET/CT in determining upfront autologous stem cell transplantation for the treatment of peripheral T cell lymphomas

Tracing the decision-making process for myelofibrosis: diagnosis, stratification, and management of ruxolitinib therapy in real-word practice

Iron deficiency: an independent prognostic marker in heart failure

Reduced risk of chronic GVHD by low-dose rATG in adult matched sibling donor peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for hematologic malignancies

Magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography findings in neurolymphomatosis: an uncommon presentation of diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials