Skip to main content
Log in

Multiples Myelom: Aktuelle Empfehlungen für die Bildgebung

Multiple myoma: current recommendations for imaging

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Aufgabe der bildgebenden Diagnostik monoklonaler Plasmazellerkrankungen ist der Nachweis der Endorganschädigung, d. h. der Osteoporose oder der Destruktion des mineralisierten Knochens. Die alleinige umschriebene oder diffuse Markrauminfiltration ohne knöcherne Destruktion gilt nach heutiger Konvention nicht als Endorganschädigung.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Konventioneller Röntgenskelettstatus zur Erfassung umschriebener Knochendestruktionen, von Osteoporose oder Frakturen.

Methodische Innovationen

Die Ganzkörper-low-dose-CT und Ganzkörper-MRT ermöglichen eine Darstellung sowohl des mineralisierten Knochens als auch des Knochenmarks mit einer höheren Sensitivität, höherem Patientenkomfort und im Falle der MRT ohne Strahlenbelastung.

Leistungsfähigkeit

Nach den Ergebnissen der Literatur sind Schnittbildverfahren dem Röntgenskelettstatus signifikant überlegen, wobei die Ganzkörper-MRT für den Nachweis insbesondere eines diffusen Knochenmarkbefalls signifikant besser ist als die Ganzkörper-CT. Praktisch jeder osteodestruktive Herd ist in der MRT sichtbar. Allerdings ist für die Beurteilung der Osteodestruktion selbst wiederum eine CT erforderlich. Die Sensitivitäten von PET/CT und MRT sind vergleichbar.

Bewertung

Wie bereits in einigen Zentren insbesondere in Deutschland umgesetzt, sollten bei Verfügbarkeit das Ganzkörper-MRT und das Ganzkörper-CT den konventionellen Röntgenskelettstatus ersetzen.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Bei Erstdiagnose bzw. Verdacht auf eine monoklonale Gammopathie unklarer Signifikanz (MGUS), „smoldering multiple myeloma“ und symptomatisches multiples Myelom sollten sowohl eine Ganzkörper-MRT als auch eine Ganzkörper-CT durchgeführt werden. Bei asymptomatischem Myelom oder MGUS wäre die Ganzkörper-MRT bis zur Detektion des ersten umschriebenen Myelomherdes ausreichend. Beim symptomatischen Myelom mit Knochenläsionen sollten in der Regel die Ganzkörper-CT und für spezielle Fragestellungen die MRT eingesetzt werden.

Abstract

Clinical/methodical issue

Imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disease serves to detect end organ damage, i.e., osteoporosis or bone destruction. Diffuse or circumscribed bone marrow infiltration without damage to mineralized bone is so far not regarded as end organ damage.

Standard radiological methods

Skeletal plain x-ray film survey to detect bone destruction, osteoporosis or fractures.

Methodical innovations

Whole body low-dose computed tomography (CT) and whole body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allow a more sensitive assessment of both mineralized bone and bone marrow, with greater patient comfort and in the case of MRI without ionizing radiation.

Performance

According to the literature, cross-sectional imaging is clearly superior to skeletal surveys and MRI is more sensitive than CT. Every locally destructive lesion will be detectable with MRI but for assessing the damage to mineralized bone CT is indispensible. The sensitivities of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and MRI are comparable.

Achievements

If available whole body MRI and whole body low dose CT should replace conventional skeletal surveys. This has already been implemented in several centers in Germany.

Practical recommendations

For the initial diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smoldering multiple myeloma or symptomatic multiple myeloma, a whole-body MRI and a whole body low-dose CT should be performed. For MGUS and asymptomatic myeloma, whole body MRI only should be performed for follow-up until detection of first bone destruction. Patients with symptomatic multiple myeloma and known bone destruction will usually have whole body low-dose CT, supplemented by MRI studies where clinically required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. 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(2):477–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL et al (2009) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 114(10):2068–2076

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Baur A, Stäbler A, Nagel D et al (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? Cancer 95(6):1334–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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(4):1097–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G et al (2005) Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184(4):1199–1204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP et al (2011) Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood 117(18):4701–4705

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dispenzieri A, Rajkumar SV, Gertz MA et al (2007) Treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma based on Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-adapted Therapy (mSMART): consensus statement. Mayo Clin Proc 82(3):323–341

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(3):842–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Durie BG, Kyle RA, Belch A et al (2003) Myeloma management guidelines: a consensus report from the Scientific Advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J 4(6):379–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS (1967) The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol 18(2):158–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M et al (2008) 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 49(2):195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fulciniti M, Sundararaman S, Nanjappa P et al (2009) Gadolinium containing contrast agent promotes multiple myeloma cell growth: implication for clinical use of MRI in myeloma. Blood 114:1809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M et al (2006) Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 16(5):1005–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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). Skeletal Radiol 38(3):225–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(9):1606–1610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hillengass J, Bäuerle T, Bartl R et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging for non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of bone marrow infiltration in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease: a comparative study with histology. Br J Haematol 153(6):721–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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(2):289–297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B et al (2007) 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 109(8):1617–1626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(5):749–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV et al (2002) A long-term study of prognosis in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 346(8):564–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kyle RA, Remstein ED, Therneau TM et al (2007) Clinical course and prognosis of smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 356(25):2582–2590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Landgren O, Kyle RA, Pfeiffer RM et al (2009) Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. Blood 113(22):5412–5417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(6):1206–1212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Nosàs-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K et al (2005) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers. J Magn Reson Imaging 22(1):154–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Raab MS, Podar K, Breitkreutz I et al (2009) Multiple myeloma. Lancet 374(9686):324–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 25(9):1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weiss BM, Abadie J, Verma P et al (2009) A monoclonal gammopathy precedes multiple myeloma in most patients. Blood 113(22):5418–5422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 [Epub ahead of print]

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seinen Koautor an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Hillengass.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hillengass, J., Delorme, S. Multiples Myelom: Aktuelle Empfehlungen für die Bildgebung. Radiologe 52, 360–365 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-011-2257-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-011-2257-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation