Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Assessment of Bone Involvement in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Preliminary Results

Overview

Journal Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging

Specialties Biophysics
Nuclear Medicine
Radiology

Date 2006 Feb 3

PMID 16453155

Citations 40

Authors

Cristina Nanni

Elena Zamagni

Mohsen Farsad

Paolo Castellucci

Patrizia Tosi

Delia Cangini

Eugenio Salizzoni

Romeo Canini

Michele Cavo

Stefano Fanti

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a malignant B cell and plasma cell disorder which involves the skeleton in more than 80% of patients at diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare whole-body X-ray (WBXR), MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with MM.

Methods: The study population comprised 28 newly diagnosed MM patients. Findings of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were compared with those of WBXR and MRI with regard to the number and site of lesions detected.

Results: Comparing (18)F-FDG PET/CT and WBXR, it was found that in 16/28 pts (57%) (18)F-FDG PET/CT detected more lesions, all of which were located in the skeleton. Nine of these 16 patients had a completely negative WBXR survey. In 12/28 pts (43%) the two methods yielded equivalent findings. Comparing (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, it was found that in 7/28 pts (25%), (18)F-FDG PET/CT detected more lytic bone lesions, all of which were located outside the field of view of MRI (bone lesions in six cases and a soft tissue lesion in one). In 14/28 pts (50%), (18)F-FDG PET/CT and MRI detected the same number of lesions in the spine and pelvis, while in 7/28 pts (25%) MRI detected an infiltrative pattern in the spine whereas (18)F-FDG PET/CT was negative.

Conclusion: (18)F-FDG PET/CT appears to be more sensitive than WBXR for the detection of small lytic bone lesions, whereas it has the same sensitivity as MRI in detecting bone disease of the spine and pelvis. On the other hand, MRI may be superior to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing an infiltrative pattern in the spine. Therefore, careful evaluation of MM bone disease at diagnosis should include both MRI of the spine and (18)F-FDG PET/CT.

Citing Articles

Ga-68 Pentixafor PET/CT in multiple myeloma and its correlation with clinical parameters: institutional pilot study.

Gauthaman D, Muthukrishnan I, Acharya K, Simon S Ann Nucl Med. 2025; .

PMID: 40053177 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-025-02036-5.

F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Comparative Review.

Mesguich C, Hulin C, Latrabe V, Lascaux A, Bordenave L, Hindie E Front Nucl Med. 2024; 1:808627.

PMID: 39355637 PMC: 11440970. DOI: 10.3389/fnume.2021.808627.

Prognostic significance of extramedullary disease (EMD) detected on pre-transplant F-FDG PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma: Results of PIPET-M trial.

Yanamandra U, Reddy Gorla A, Agrawal K, Mittal B, Prakash G, Khadwal A Med J Armed Forces India. 2023; 79(6):672-678.

PMID: 37981939 PMC: 10654356. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2023.08.007.

Cluster analysis of autoencoder-extracted FDG PET/CT features identifies multiple myeloma patients with poor prognosis.

Lee H, Hyun S, Cho Y, Moon S, Choi J, Kim K Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):7881.

PMID: 37188831 PMC: 10185699. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34653-3.

Head-to-head comparison of [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [F]FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma.

Souza S, Frasson F, Takahashi M, Duarte G, Castro V, Pericole F Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023; 50(8):2432-2440.

PMID: 36988710 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-023-06214-3.

References

Woodruff R, Wadsworth J, MALPAS J, Tobias J . Clinical staging in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 1979; 42(2):199-205. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1979.tb01124.x. View

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

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

Moulopoulos L, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A, Delasalle K, Weber D, Alexanian R . Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16(11):1824-8. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdi362. View

Jadvar H, Conti P . Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2002; 31(12):690-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-002-0580-2. View

Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M . Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002; 52(1):23-47. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.52.1.23. View

Umeda M, Adachi Y, Tomiyama J, Takasaki M, Shin K, Mori M . [Bone lesions in elderly multiple myeloma]. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. 2003; 39(6):631-8. DOI: 10.3143/geriatrics.39.631. View

Schwartz G . Multiple myeloma: clusters, clues, and dioxins. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997; 6(1):49-56. View

Durie B, Waxman A, DAgnolo A, Williams C . Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2002; 43(11):1457-63. View

10.

Klein B, Bataille R . Cytokine network in human multiple myeloma. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 1992; 6(2):273-84. View

11.

Ghanem N, Uhl M, Brink I, Schafer O, Kelly T, Moser E . Diagnostic value of MRI in comparison to scintigraphy, PET, MS-CT and PET/CT for the detection of metastases of bone. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 55(1):41-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.01.016. View

12.

Harousseau J, Shaughnessy Jr J, Richardson P . Multiple myeloma. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2004; :237-56. DOI: 10.1182/asheducation-2004.1.237. View

13.

Angtuaco E, Fassas A, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B . Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology. 2004; 231(1):11-23. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2311020452. View

14.

Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K . The value of magnetic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine. Br J Haematol. 1995; 91(3):658-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.1995.tb05363.x. View

15.

Walker R, Eustace S . Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: techniques, clinical indications, and future applications. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2001; 5(1):5-20. DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-12923. View

16.

Terpos E, Politou M, Rahemtulla A . New insights into the pathophysiology and management of bone disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2003; 123(5):758-69. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04712.x. View

17.

Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck A, Muller S, Messer P, Bunjes D . Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002; 29(3):361-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-001-0711-3. View

18.

Mariette X, Zagdanski A, Guermazi A, Bergot C, Arnould A, Frija J . 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. View

19.

Blade J, Kyle R, Greipp P . Multiple myeloma in patients younger than 30 years. Report of 10 cases and review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156(13):1463-8. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.1996.00440120125014. View

20.

Moulopoulos L, Dimopoulos M, Smith T, Weber D, Delasalle K, Libshitz H . Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13(1):251-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.1.251. View