The Current Research Status of Imaging Assessment of Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma

Jing Zhou

doi:10.54097/h4n96683

Authors

Jing Zhou

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/h4n96683

Keywords:

Image, MBD, Evaluate

Abstract

With rapid advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma (MBD), Imaging assessments play a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of MBD. Traditional whole-body X-ray has been commonly used. Whole-body low-dose computed tomography, whole-body MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT are more sophisticated techniques that have been recommended for the initial assessment of MM-related lytic bone lesions. MRI remains the gold standard for bone marrow involvement detection, while PET/CT offers valuable prognostic data and is preferred for therapy response assessment. Diffusion-weighted MR has been shown to be superior to both skeletal X-ray and MRI of the spine for detecting focal lesions in MBD. Diffusion-weighted MR is a functional imaging technique that effectively detects bone disease changes according to treatment response and can be used to monitor disease response. Advanced imaging techniques have significantly improved the sensitivity for detecting MBD. This review focuses on the imaging modalities available for MBD patient management, highlighting advantages, disadvantages, and applications of each.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

C. Röllig, S. Knop, and M. Bornhäuser, “Multiple myeloma”, The Lancet, vol. 385, no. 9983, pp. 2197–2208, May 2015.

F. Morandi, A. L. Horenstein, F. Costa, N. Giuliani, V. Pistoia, and F. Malavasi, “CD38: A Target for Immunotherapeutic Approaches in Multiple Myeloma”, Front. Immunol., vol. 9, Nov. 2018.

S. K. Kumar et al., “Multiple myeloma”, Nat Rev Dis Primers, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–20, Jul. 2017.

N. W. C. J. van de Donk, C. Pawlyn, and K. L. Yong, “Multiple myeloma”, The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 10272, pp. 410–427, Jan. 2021.

Z. S. Bernstein, E. B. Kim, and N. Raje, “Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma: Biologic and Clinical Implications”, Cells, vol. 11, no. 15, Art. no. 15, Jan. 2022.

S. Marino and G. D. Roodman, “Multiple Myeloma and Bone: The Fatal Interaction”, Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med, vol. 8, no. 8, p. a031286, Aug. 2018.

C. Panaroni, A. J. Yee, and N. S. Raje, “Myeloma and Bone Disease”, Curr Osteoporos Rep, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 483–498, Oct. 2017.

S. Marino, D. N. Petrusca, and G. D. Roodman, “Therapeutic targets in myeloma bone disease”, British J Pharmacology, vol. 178, no. 9, pp. 1907–1922, May 2021.

F. I. Baffour, K. N. Glazebrook, S. K. Kumar, and S. M. Broski, “Role of imaging in multiple myeloma”, American J Hematol, vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 966–977, Aug. 2020.

M. A. Dimopoulos et al., “Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Management of Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Consensus Statement”, JCO, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 657–664, Feb. 2015.

R. Vij, K. J. Fowler, and M. Shokeen, “New Approaches to Molecular Imaging of Multiple Myeloma”, J Nucl Med, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1–4, Jan. 2016.

E. Hill et al., “Diagnostic performance of 18F‐FDG‐PET/CT compared to standard skeletal survey for detecting bone destruction in smouldering multiple myeloma: time to move forward”, Br J Haematol, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 125–128, Apr. 2021.

E. Zamagni et al., “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, vol. 92, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Jan. 2007.

S. Pn and C. Orzincolo, “[bone disease in multiple myeloma. Analysis of 253 controlled cases, with reappraisal of diagnostic criteria and current imaging techniques].”, Radiol. med., vol. 85 3, pp. 235–46, 1993.

J. M. Woolfenden, M. J. Pitt, B. G. Durie, and T. E. Moon, “Comparison of bone scintigraphy and radiography in multiple myeloma.”, Radiology, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 723–728, Mar. 1980.

J. I. Sebes, H. B. Niell, G. M. A. Palmieri, and T. J. Reidy, “Skeletal surveys in multiple myeloma”, Skeletal Radiol, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 354–359, Jun. 1986.

D. Ippolito, V. Besostri, P. A. Bonaffini, F. Rossini, A. Di Lelio, and S. Sironi, “Diagnostic value of whole-body low-dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) in bone lesions detection in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)”, European Journal of Radiology, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 2322–2327, Dec. 2013.

M. J. Pianko et al., “Whole-Body Low-Dose Computed Tomography and Advanced Imaging Techniques for Multiple Myeloma Bone Disease”, Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 20, no. 23, pp. 5888–5897, Dec. 2014.

T. G. Gleeson 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, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 225–236, Mar. 2009.

M. Zacchino et al., “Inter-observer agreement for the evaluation of bone involvement on Whole Body Low Dose Computed Tomography (WBLDCT) in Multiple Myeloma (MM)”, Eur Radiol, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 3382–3389, Nov. 2015.

M. S. Horger et al., “The benefit of whole-body low-dose unenhanced multidetector computer tomography (WBLD-MDCT) for follow up and therapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma: Correlation with hematologic parameters”, JCO, vol. 24, no. 18_suppl, pp. 7607–7607, Jun. 2006.

D. Ippolito et al., “Diagnostic value of whole-body ultra-low dose computed tomography in comparison with spinal magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of disease in multiple myeloma”, Br J Haematol, vol. 177, no. 3, pp. 395–403, May 2017.

D. Spira, K. Weisel, H. Brodoefel, M. Schulze, S. Kaufmann, and M. Horger, “Can Whole-body Low-dose Multidetector CT Exclude the Presence of Myeloma Bone Disease in Patients with Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance (MGUS)?”, Academic Radiology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 89–94, Jan. 2012.

A. Kosmala et al., “Multiple Myeloma and Dual-Energy CT: Diagnostic Accuracy of Virtual Noncalcium Technique for Detection of Bone Marrow Infiltration of the Spine and Pelvis”, Radiology, vol. 286, no. 1, pp. 205–213, Jan. 2018.

S. Werner, B. Krauss, and M. Horger, “Dual-Energy CT-Based Bone Marrow Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment of Focal Lesions in Relation to Disease Status and MRI Findings”, Academic Radiology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 245–254, Feb. 2022.

P. I. Mallinson, T. M. Coupal, P. D. McLaughlin, S. Nicolaou, P. L. Munk, and H. A. Ouellette, “Dual-Energy CT for the Musculoskeletal System”, Radiology, vol. 281, no. 3, pp. 690–707, Dec. 2016.

C. H. Suh, S. J. Yun, W. Jin, S. H. Lee, S. Y. Park, and C.-W. Ryu, “Diagnostic performance of dual-energy CT for the detection of bone marrow oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, Eur Radiol, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 4182–4194, Oct. 2018.

C. P. Reinert, E.-M. Krieg, H. Bösmüller, and M. Horger, “Mid-term response assessment in multiple myeloma using a texture analysis approach on dual energy-CT-derived bone marrow images — A proof of principle study”, European Journal of Radiology, vol. 131, p. 109214, Oct. 2020.

P. Moreau et al., “Evaluation of the Prognostic Value of Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) at Diagnosis and Follow-up in Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (TE NDMM) Patients Treated in the Phase 3 Cassiopeia Study: Results of the Cassiopet Companion Study”, Blood, vol. 134, no. Supplement_1, pp. 692–692, Nov. 2019.

M. A. Aljama et al., “Utility and prognostic value of 18F‐FDG positron emission tomography‐computed tomography scans in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma”, American J Hematol, vol. 93, no. 12, pp. 1518–1523, Dec. 2018.

G. Rubini, A. Niccoli-Asabella, C. Ferrari, V. Racanelli, N. Maggialetti, and F. Dammacco, “Myeloma bone and extra-medullary disease: Role of PET/CT and other whole-body imaging techniques”, Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, vol. 101, pp. 169–183, May 2016.

P. Moreau et al., “Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography at Diagnosis and Before Maintenance Therapy in Symptomatic Patients With Multiple Myeloma Included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial: Results of the IMAJEM Study”, JCO, vol. 35, no. 25, pp. 2911–2918, Sep. 2017.

P. J. Peller, “Role of Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography in Bone Malignancies”, Radiologic Clinics of North America, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 845–864, Sep. 2013.

E. Zamagni, P. Tacchetti, and M. Cavo, “Imaging in multiple myeloma: How? When?”, Blood, vol. 133, no. 7, pp. 644–651, Feb. 2019.

F. Patriarca et al., “The Role of Positron Emission Tomography with 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Integrated with Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation”, Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1068–1073, Jun. 2015.

F. Spina et al., “Results of a Prospective Study Comparing Whole-Body Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Skeletal X-Ray and Magnetic Resonance of the Spine for Assessing Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma.”, Blood, vol. 120, no. 21, pp. 2913–2913, Nov. 2012.

E. Zamagni, P. Tacchetti, S. Barbato, and M. Cavo, “Role of Imaging in the Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma Patients”, JCM, vol. 9, no. 11, p. 3519, 2020.

S. Mangiacavalli et al., “Whole Body Diffusion Weighted MRI (WB DWI) for the Management of Multiple Myeloma: High Concordance between MRI Diffuse Pattern and BONE Marrow Plasma CELL Infiltration RATE”, Blood, vol. 134, no. Supplement_1, pp. 5495–5495, Nov. 2019.

B. Zhang, B. Bian, Y. Zhang, L. Zhang, R. Zhang, and J. Wang, “The Apparent Diffusion Coefficient of Diffusion-Weighted Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Affects the Survival of Multiple Myeloma Independently”, Front. Oncol., vol. 12, 2022.

S. Mulé et al., “Whole-Body Functional MRI and PET/MRI in Multiple Myeloma”, Cancers, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 3155, 2020.

C. Messiou and M. Kaiser, “Whole body diffusion weighted MRI – a new view of myeloma”, Br J Haematol, vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 29–37, Oct. 2015.

T. Pearce, S. Philip, J. Brown, D. M. Koh, and P. R. Burn, “Bone metastases from prostate, breast and multiple myeloma: differences in lesion conspicuity at short-tau inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted MRI”, The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 85, no. 1016, pp. 1102–1106, Aug. 2012.

Y. Zhang et al., “Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for evaluation of response in multiple myeloma patients following bortezomib-based therapy: A large single-center cohort study”, European Journal of Radiology, vol. 120, p. 108695, Nov. 2019.

P. A. Bonaffini, D. Ippolito, A. Casiraghi, V. Besostri, C. T. Franzesi, and S. Sironi, “Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps Integrated in Whole-Body MRI Examination for the Evaluation of Tumor Response to Chemotherapy in Patients with Multiple Myeloma”, Academic Radiology, vol. 22, no. 9, pp. 1163–1171, Sep. 2015.

C. Mesguich et al., “Prospective comparison of 18-FDG PET/CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in the assessment of multiple myeloma”, Ann Hematol, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 2869–2880, Dec. 2020.

A. Larbi et al., “Whole-body MRI to assess bone involvement in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of the T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and high b-values diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences”, Eur Radiol, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 4503–4513, Aug. 2019.