Informative value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted images for the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with multiple myeloma (literature review) (2023)

1. Durie B.G., Salmon S.E. 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. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(197509)36:3<842::aid-cncr2820360303>;2-u.

2. Engelhardt M., Kleber M., Frydrychowicz A. et al. Superiority of magnetic resonance imaging over conventional radiographs in multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res 2009;29(11):4745–50.

3. Winterbottom A.P., Shaw A.S. Imaging patients with myeloma. Clin Radiol 2009;64(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.07.006.

4. Gleeson T.G., Moriarty J., Shortt C.P. et al. 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 2009;38(3):225–36. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-008-0607-4.

5. Terpos E., Moulopoulos L.A., Dimopoulos M.A. Advances in imaging and the management of myeloma bone disease. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(14):1907–15. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.5449.

6. Mahnken A.H., Wildberger J.E., Gehbauer G. et al. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(6):1429–36. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781429.

7. Wolf M.B., Murray F., Kilk K. et al. Sensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease. Eur J Radiol 2014;83(7):1222–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.008.

8. Baur-Melnyk A., Buhmann S., Becker C. et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(4):1097– 104. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2635.

9. Durie B.G. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 2006;42(11):1539–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.11.037.

10. Mena E., Choyke P., Tan E. et al. Molecular imaging in myeloma precursor disease. Semin Hematol 2011;48(1):22–31. DOI: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2010.11.006.

11. Durie B.G., Harousseau J.L., Miguel J.S. et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006;20(9):1467–73. DOI: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284. Erratum in: Leukemia 2006;20(12):2220. Erratum in: Leukemia 2007;21(5):1134.

12. Adam Z., Bolcak K., Stanicek J. et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma, solitary plasmocytoma and monoclonal gammapathy of unknown significance. Neoplasma 2007;54(6):536–40.

13. Lütje S., de Rooy J.W., Croockewit S. et al. Role of radiography, MRI and FDGPET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 2009;88(12):1161–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-009-0829-0.

14. Zamagni E., Patriarca F., Nanni C. et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/ CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011;118(23):5989–95. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386. Erratum in: Blood 2012;120(11):2349.

15. Zamagni E., Nanni C., Patriarca F. et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and wholebody planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007;92(1):50–5. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.10554.

16. Derlin T., Weber C., Habermann C.R. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection and localization of residual or recurrent disease in patients with multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39(3):493–500. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-1993-8.

17. Spinnato P., Bazzocchi A., Brioli A. et al. 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 2012;81(12):4013–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.06.028.

18. Shortt C.P., Gleeson T.G., Breen K.A. et al. Whole-body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(4):980–6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1633.

19. Walker R.C., Brown T.L., Jones-Jackson L.B. et al. Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med 2012;53(7):1091–101. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.111.098830.

20. Hillengass J., Landgren O. Challenges and opportunities of novel imaging techniques in monoclonal plasma cell disorders: imaging “early myeloma”. Leuk Lymphoma 2013;54(7):1355–63. DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2012.740559.

21. Schmidt G.P., Reiser M.F., Baur-Melnyk A. Whole-body MRI for the staging and follow-up of patients with metastasis. Eur J Radiol 2009;70(3):393–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.045.

22. Dimopoulos M.A., Hillengass J., Usmani S. 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. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9961.

23. Lecouvet F.E., Larbi A., Pasoglou V. et al. MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease. Eur Radiol 2013;23(7): 1986–97. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2792-3.

24. Padhani A.R., Khan A.A. Diffusionweighted (DW) and dynamic contrastenhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol 2010;5(1):39–52. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-010-0135-8.

25. Caers J., Withofs N., Hillengass J. et al. The role of positron emission tomographycomputed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow up of multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2014;99(4):629–37. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2013.091918.

26. Dutoit J.C., Vanderkerken M.A., Verstraete K.L. Value of whole body MRI and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the diagnosis, follow-up and evaluation of disease activity and extent in multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(9):1444–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.012.

27. Dutoit J.C., Vanderkerken M.A., Anthonissen J. et al. The diagnostic value of SE MRI and DWI of the spine in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smouldering myeloma and multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2014;24(11):2754–65. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3324-5.

28. Dutoit J.C., Claus E., Offner F. et al. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.040.

29. Vande Berg B.C., Malghem J., Lecouvet F.E., Maldague B. Magnetic resonance imaging of the normal bone marrow. Skeletal Radiol 1998;27(9):471–83. DOI: 10.1007/s002560050423.

30. Bier G., Kloth C., Schabel C. et al. Vertebral lesion distribution in multiple myeloma – assessed by reduced-dose whole-body MDCT. Skeletal Radiol 2016;45(1):127–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-015-2268-4.

31. Hillengass J., Fechtner K., Weber M.A. et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010;28(9):1606–10. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5356.

32. Vande Berg B.C., Michaux L., Lecouvet F.E. et al. Nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy: correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory findings and spontaneous clinical outcome. Radiology 1997;202(1):247–51. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988218.

33. Hillengass J., Weber M.A., Kilk K. et al. Prognostic significance of whole-body MRI in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Leukemia 2014;28(1):174–8. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2013.244.

34. Merz M., Hielscher T., Wagner B. et al. Predictive value of longitudinal wholebody magnetic resonance imaging in patients with smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2014;28(9):1902–8. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2014.75.

35. Vogler J.B. 3rd, Murphy W.A. Bone marrow imaging. Radiology 1988;168(3):679–93. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.168.3.3043546.

36. Silva J.R. Jr, Hayashi D., Yonenaga T. et al. MRI of bone marrow abnormalities in hematological malignancies. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013;19(5):393–9. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2013.067.

37. Schmidt G.P., Reiser M.F., BaurMelnyk A. Whole-body imaging of the musculoskeletal system: the value of MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2007;36(12):1109–19. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-007-0323-5.

38. Baur A., Stäbler A., Bartl R. et al. Infiltrationsmuster des plasmozytoms in der magnetresonanztomographie [Infiltration patterns of plasmacytomas in magnetic resonance tomography]. Rofo 1996;164(6):457–63. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1015689.

39. Baur-Melnyk A., Buhmann S., Dürr H.R., Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005;55(1):56–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.01.017.

40. Stäbler A., Baur A., Bartl R. et al. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167(4):1029–36. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819407.

41. Vande Berg B.C., Michaux L., Scheiff J.M. et al. Sequential quantitative MR analysis of bone marrow: differences during treatment of lymphoid versus myeloid leukemia. Radiology 1996;201(2):519–23. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.201.2.8888252.

42. Moulopoulos L.A., Dimopoulos M.A. Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in hematologic malignancies. Blood 1997;90(6):2127–47.

43. Dimopoulos M.A., Moulopoulos A., Smith T. et al. Risk of disease progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1993;94(1):57–61. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(93)90120-e.

44. Mariette X., Zagdanski A.M., Guermazi A. et al. Prognostic value of vertebral lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stage I multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1999;104(4):723–9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1999.01244.x.

45. Weber D.M., Dimopoulos M.A., Moulopoulos L.A. et al. Prognostic features of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997;97(4):810–4. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1997.1122939.x.

46. Walker R., Barlogie B., Haessler J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(9):1121–8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.5803.

47. Moulopoulos L.A., Dimopoulos M.A., Christoulas D. et al. Diffuse MRI marrow pattern correlates with increased angiogenesis, advanced disease features and poor prognosis in newly diagnosed myeloma treated with novel agents. Leukemia 2010;24(6):1206–12. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2010.70.

48. Moulopoulos L.A., Dimopoulos M.A., Kastritis E. et al. Diffuse pattern of bone marrow involvement on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with high risk cytogenetics and poor outcome in newly diagnosed, symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma: a single center experience on 228 patients. Am J Hematol 2012;87(9):861–4. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23258.

49. Mai E.K., Hielscher T., Kloth J.K. et al. Association between magnetic resonance imaging patterns and baseline disease features in multiple myeloma: analyzing surrogates of tumour mass and biology. Eur Radiol 2016;26(11):3939–48. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4195-0.

50. Lecouvet F.E., Dechambre S., Malghem J. et al. Bone marrow transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: prognostic significance of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(1):91–6. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.176.1.1760091.

51. Hillengass J., Ayyaz S., Kilk K. et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2012;97(11):1757–60. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2012.065359.

52. Solovev M.V., Mendeleeva L.P., Yatsyk G.A. et al. Bone marrow MRI after autologous transplantation and the effect of residual tumor on progression-free survival of multiple myeloma patients. Onkogematologiya = Oncohematology 2018;13(4):46–53. (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.17650/1818-8346-2018-13-4-46-53.

53. Daldrup-Link H.E., Henning T., Link T.M. MR imaging of therapy-induced changes of bone marrow. Eur Radiol 2007;17(3):743–61. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0404-1.

54. Vande Berg B.C., Lecouvet F.E., Galant C. et al. Normal variants and frequent marrow alterations that simulate bone marrow lesions at MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43(4):761–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2005.01.007.

55. Hartman R.P., Sundaram M., Okuno S.H., Sim F.H. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(3):645–53. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.183.3.1830645.

56. Padhani A.R., Koh D.M. Diffusion MR imaging for monitoring of treatment response. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2011;19(1):181–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2010.10.004.

57. Khoo M.M., Tyler P.A., Saifuddin A., Padhani A.R. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in musculoskeletal MRI: a critical review. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40(6):665–81. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-011-1106-6.

58. Padhani A.R., van Ree K., Collins D.J. et al. Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(1):163–70. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.8185.

59. Messiou C., Giles S., Collins D.J. et al. Assessing response of myeloma bone disease with diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1020):e1198–203. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/52759767.

60. Fenchel M., Konaktchieva M., Weisel K. et al. Early response assessment in patients with multiple myeloma during antiangiogenic therapy using arterial spin labelling: first clinical results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(12):2899–906. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1870-z.

61. Bonaffini P.A., Ippolito D., Casiraghi A. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps integrated in whole-body MRI examination for the evaluation of tumor response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Acad Radiol 2015;22(9):1163–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.05.011.

62. Horger M., Weisel K., Horger W. et al. 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. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5979.

63. Padhani A.R., Koh D.M., Collins D.J. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology 2011;261(3):700–18. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110474.

64. Giles S.L., Messiou C., Collins D.J. et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology 2014;271(3):785–94. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131529.

65. Lutsik N.S., Mendeleeva L.P., Solovev M.V. et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and treatment monitoring in multiple myeloma. Gematologiya i transfuziologiya = Russian Journal of Hematology and Transfusiology 2020;65(4):431–43. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.35754/0234-5730-2020-65-4431-443.

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Merrill Bechtelar CPA

Last Updated: 27/06/2023

Views: 6067

Rating: 5 / 5 (70 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Merrill Bechtelar CPA

Birthday: 1996-05-19

Address: Apt. 114 873 White Lodge, Libbyfurt, CA 93006

Phone: +5983010455207

Job: Legacy Representative

Hobby: Blacksmithing, Urban exploration, Sudoku, Slacklining, Creative writing, Community, Letterboxing

Introduction: My name is Merrill Bechtelar CPA, I am a clean, agreeable, glorious, magnificent, witty, enchanting, comfortable person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.