» Articles » PMID: 28656463

Whole-body MRI Quantitative Biomarkers Are Associated Significantly with Treatment Response in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Symptomatic Multiple Myeloma Following Bortezomib Induction

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) parameters significantly associated with treatment response in multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods: Twenty-one MM patients underwent WB-MRI at diagnosis and after two cycles of chemotherapy. Scans acquired at 3.0 T included T2, diffusion-weighted-imaging (DWI) and mDixon pre- and post-contrast. Twenty focal lesions (FLs) matched on DWI and post-contrast mDixon were selected for each time point. Estimated tumour volume (eTV), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), enhancement ratio (ER) and signal fat fraction (sFF) were derived. Clinical treatment response to chemotherapy was assessed using conventional criteria. Significance of temporal parameter change was assessed by the paired t test and receiver operating characteristics/area under the curve (AUC) analysis was performed. Parameter repeatability was assessed by interclass correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis of 10 healthy volunteers scanned at two time points.

Results: Fifteen of 21 patients responded to treatment. Of 254 FLs analysed, sFF (p < 0.0001) and ADC (p = 0.001) significantly increased in responders but not non-responders. eTV significantly decreased in 19/21 cases. Focal lesion sFF was the best discriminator of treatment response (AUC 1.0). Bone sFF repeatability was excellent (ICC 0.98) and better than bone ADC (ICC 0.47).

Conclusion: WB-MRI derived focal lesion sFF shows promise as an imaging biomarker of treatment response in newly diagnosed MM.

Key Points: • Bone signal fat fraction using mDixon is a robust quantifiable parameter • Fat fraction and ADC significantly increase in myeloma lesions responding to treatment • Bone lesion fat fraction is the best discriminator of myeloma treatment response.

Citing Articles

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.


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.


Fat Fraction Extracted from Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance (WB-MR) in Bone Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Intra- and Inter-Reader Agreement of Single-Slice and Volumetric Measurements.

Agazzi G, di Meo N, Rondi P, Saeli C, Dalla Volta A, Vezzoli M Tomography. 2024; 10(7):1014-1023.

PMID: 39058047 PMC: 11280977. DOI: 10.3390/tomography10070075.


Volumetric measurement of terminal ileal Crohn's disease by magnetic resonance enterography: a feasibility study.

Kumar S, Rao N, Bhagwanani A, Parry T, Hameed M, Rahman S Eur Radiol. 2024; 35(1):117-126.

PMID: 39028375 PMC: 11632055. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10880-8.


Whole-body MRI in oncology: acquisition protocols, current guidelines, and beyond.

Zugni F, Mariani L, Lambregts D, Maggioni R, Summers P, Granata V Radiol Med. 2024; 129(9):1352-1368.

PMID: 38990426 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01851-6.


References
1.
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

2.
Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg S, Lang N, Bartl R . 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. View

3.
Maas M, Akkerman E, Venema H, Stoker J, den Heeten G . Dixon quantitative chemical shift MRI for bone marrow evaluation in the lumbar spine: a reproducibility study in healthy volunteers. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001; 25(5):691-7. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-200109000-00005. View

4.
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

5.
Bauerle T, Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Zechmann C, Grenacher L, Moehler T . Multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: importance of whole-body versus spinal MR imaging. Radiology. 2009; 252(2):477-85. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2522081756. View