The Diagnostic Value of SE MRI and DWI of the Spine in Patients with Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance, Smouldering Myeloma and Multiple Myeloma

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2014 Aug 10

PMID 25106487

Citations 25

Authors

Julie C Dutoit

Matthias A Vanderkerken

Joris Anthonissen

Frederick Dochy

Koenraad L Verstraete

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate DWI of the bone marrow in the differentiation of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smouldering myeloma (SMM) and multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods: The retrospective study includes 64 patients with MGUS, 27 with SMM, 64 with new MM and 12 controls. Signal intensity (SI) of spinal SE-MRI and DWI (b0-1000) as well as apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) were measured in the T10 and L3. Qualitative assessment of b-images was performed by one experienced radiologist.

Results: ADC600 and ADC1000 are the best ADC values in differentiating patient groups (p < 0.030). SIT2, SIb1000 and ADC1000 are higher and SIT1 lower in L3 compared to T10 (p < 0.050). All quantitative parameters of L3 can differentiate significantly between MGUS and MM (p < 0.050) and between patients with percentage plasma cells (PC%) between 0-10 % compared to >50 % (p = 0.001). Only SIT2 for L3 can differentiate MGUS from SMM (p = 0.044) and PC%0-10 from PC%10-25 (p = 0.033). Qualitative interpretation of b1000 images allows differentiating MM patients from those with MGUS or SMM (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Spinal SE-MRI can differentiate among MGUS, SMM, MM and control subjects. DWI based on the SI on b1000 images and ADC values is increased in MM compared to MGUS and SMM. Qualitative assessment of b-images can differentiate MM from MGUS or SMM.

Key Points: • ADC values are higher in patients with MM compared to MGUS • DWI parameters change late in disease evolution • DWI is sensitive but not specific in diagnosing patients with MM • Qualitative DWI assessment is good in detecting myeloma patients.

Citing Articles

Recent advances in imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) for quantitative assessment of multiple myeloma.

Liu Y, Huang W, Yang Y, Cai W, Sun Z Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024; 14(4):208-229.

PMID: 39309415 PMC: 11411189. DOI: 10.62347/NLLV9295.

EANM guidelines on the use of [F]FDG PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, prognostication, therapy assessment, and restaging of plasma cell disorders.

Nanni C, Deroose C, Balogova S, Lapa C, Withofs N, Subesinghe M Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024; 52(1):171-192.

PMID: 39207486 PMC: 11599630. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06858-9.

Predicting cytogenetic risk in multiple myeloma using conventional whole-body MRI, spinal dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, and spinal diffusion-weighted imaging.

Den Berghe T, Verberckmoes B, Kint N, Wallaert S, De Vos N, Algoet C Insights Imaging. 2024; 15(1):106.

PMID: 38597979 PMC: 11006637. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01672-1.

New Developments in Myeloma Treatment and Response Assessment.

Kraeber-Bodere F, Jamet B, Bezzi D, Zamagni E, Moreau P, Nanni C J Nucl Med. 2023; 64(9):1331-1343.

PMID: 37591548 PMC: 10478822. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264972.

Test-retest, inter- and intra-rater reproducibility of size measurements of focal bone marrow lesions in MRI in patients with multiple myeloma.

Wennmann M, Grozinger M, Weru V, Hielscher T, Rotkopf L, Bauer F Br J Radiol. 2023; 96(1145):20220745.

PMID: 37001052 PMC: 10161907. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220745.

References

Landgren O, Waxman A . Multiple myeloma precursor disease. JAMA. 2010; 304(21):2397-404. PMC: 6860969. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1713. View

Messiou C, Collins D, Morgan V, deSouza N . Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21(8):1713-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2116-4. View

Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y, Miyake H, Fujisawa M, Kawakami F . Do apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values obtained using high b-values with a 3-T MRI correlate better than a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy with true Gleason scores obtained from radical prostatectomy specimens for patients with.... Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82(8):1219-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.02.021. View

Schmidt G, Reiser M, Baur-Melnyk A . Whole-body imaging of the musculoskeletal system: the value of MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol. 2007; 36(12):1109-19. PMC: 2042033. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-007-0323-5. View

Savvopoulou V, Maris T, Vlahos L, Moulopoulos L . Differences in perfusion parameters between upper and lower lumbar vertebral segments with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE MRI). Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(9):1876-83. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0943-8. View

Messiou C, Giles S, Collins D, West S, Davies F, Morgan G . Assessing response of myeloma bone disease with diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1198-203. PMC: 3611724. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/52759767. View

Lecouvet F, Larbi A, Pasoglou V, Omoumi P, Tombal B, Michoux N . MRI for response assessment in metastatic bone disease. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23(7):1986-97. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2792-3. View

Petralia G, Thoeny H . DW-MRI of the urogenital tract: applications in oncology. Cancer Imaging. 2010; 10 Spec no A:S112-23. PMC: 2967148. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2010.9030. View

Landgren O, Korde N . Multiple myeloma precursor disease: current clinical and epidemiological insights and future opportunities. Oncology (Williston Park). 2011; 25(7):589-90. View

10.

Padhani A, Gogbashian A . Bony metastases: assessing response to therapy with whole-body diffusion MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2011; 11 Spec No A:S129-45. PMC: 3266569. DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2011.9034. View

11.

Nonomura Y, Yasumoto M, Yoshimura R, Haraguchi K, Ito S, Akashi T . Relationship between bone marrow cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13(5):757-60. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1105. View

12.

Padhani A, Khan A . Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for monitoring anticancer therapy. Target Oncol. 2010; 5(1):39-52. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-010-0135-8. View

13.

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

14.

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

15.

Landgren O . Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and smoldering myeloma: new insights into pathophysiology and epidemiology. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2011; 2010:295-302. PMC: 7384383. DOI: 10.1182/asheducation-2010.1.295. View

16.

Shah R, Stieltjes B, Andrulis M, Pfeiffer R, Sumkauskaite M, Delorme S . Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for assessment of bone marrow infiltration of monoclonal plasma cell diseases. Ann Hematol. 2013; 92(11):1553-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-013-1786-1. View

17.

Dutoit J, Vanderkerken M, Verstraete K . 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. View

18.

Dietrich O, Biffar A, Reiser M, Baur-Melnyk A . Diffusion-weighted imaging of bone marrow. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2009; 13(2):134-44. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1220884. View

19.

Hillengass J, Bauerle T, Bartl R, Andrulis M, McClanahan F, Laun F . 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. 2011; 153(6):721-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08658.x. View

20.

Padhani A, Ree K, Collins D, DSa S, Makris A . Assessing the relation between bone marrow signal intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient in diffusion-weighted MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 200(1):163-70. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.8185. View