» Articles » PMID: 24489680

Magnetic Resonance Evaluation of Multiple Myeloma at 3.0 Tesla: How Do Bone Marrow Plasma Cell Percentage and Selection of Protocols Affect Lesion Conspicuity?

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2014 Feb 4
PMID 24489680
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To compare various pulse sequences in terms of percent contrast and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for detection of focal multiple myeloma lesions and to assess the dependence of lesion conspicuity on the bone marrow plasma cell percent (BMPC%).

Materials And Methods: Sagittal T1-weighted FSE, fat-suppressed T2-weighted FSE (FS- T2 FSE), fast STIR and iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of the lumbar spine were performed (n = 45). Bone marrow (BM)-focal myeloma lesion percent contrast and CNR were calculated. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were obtained between percent contrast, CNR and BMPC%. Percent contrasts and CNRs were compared among the three imaging sequences.

Results: BM-focal lesion percent contrasts, CNRs and BMPC% showed significant negative correlations in the three fat-suppression techniques. Percent contrast and CNRs were significantly higher for FS- T2 FSE than for STIR (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively), but no significant differences were found among the three fat-suppression methods in the low tumor load BM group.

Conclusion: The higher BMPC% was within BM, the less conspicuous the focal lesion was on fat-suppressed MRI. The most effective protocol for detecting focal lesions was FS- T2 FSE. In the high tumor load BM group, no significant differences in lesion conspicuity were identified among the three fat-suppression techniques.

Citing Articles

Whole body MRI in multiple myeloma: Optimising image acquisition and read times.

Singh S, Pilavachi E, Dudek A, Bray T, Latifoltojar A, Rajesparan K PLoS One. 2020; 15(1):e0228424.

PMID: 31999774 PMC: 6992198. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228424.


Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: A multi-reader study.

Bray T, Singh S, Latifoltojar A, Rajesparan K, Rahman F, Narayanan P PLoS One. 2017; 12(7):e0180562.

PMID: 28672007 PMC: 5495520. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180562.

References
1.
Terpos E, Dimopoulos M . Myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology and management. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16(8):1223-31. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdi235. View

2.
Sormaala M, Ruohola J, Mattila V, Koskinen S, Pihlajamaki H . Comparison of 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners in evaluation of acute bone stress in the foot. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12:128. PMC: 3121660. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-128. View

3.
. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol. 2003; 121(5):749-57. View

4.
Travlos G . Normal structure, function, and histology of the bone marrow. Toxicol Pathol. 2006; 34(5):548-65. DOI: 10.1080/01926230600939856. View

5.
Dixon W . Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1984; 153(1):189-94. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.153.1.6089263. View