» Articles » PMID: 32000858

Role of Whole-body MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: Comparison Between Clinical Response and Imaging Response

Overview
Journal Cancer Imaging
Publisher Springer Nature
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2020 Feb 1
PMID 32000858
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) including diffusion-weighted image (DWI) have been widely used in patients with multiple myeloma. However, evidence for the value of WB-MRI in the evaluation of treatment response remains sparse. Therefore, we evaluated the role of WB-MRI in the response assessment.

Methods: In our WB-MRI registry, we searched multiple myeloma patients treated with chemotherapy who underwent both baseline and follow-up WB-MRI scans. Clinical responses were categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD), using IMWG criteria. Using RECIST 1.1, MD Anderson (MDA) criteria, and MDA-DWI criteria, imaging responses on WB-MRI were rated as CR, PR, SD, or PD by two radiologists independently. Then, discrepancy cases were resolved by consensus. Weighted Kappa analysis was performed to evaluate agreement between the imaging and clinical responses. The diagnostic accuracy of image responses in the evaluation of clinical CR, objective response (CR and PR), and PD was calculated.

Results: Forty-two eligible patients were included. There was moderate agreement between imaging and clinical responses (κ = 0.54 for RECIST 1.1, κ = 0.58 for MDA criteria, κ = 0.69 for MDA-DWI criteria). WB-MRI showed excellent diagnostic accuracy in assessment of clinical PD (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 94.7%, positive predictive value [PPV] 84.2%, negative predictive value [NPV] 96.4% in all three imaging criteria). By contrast, WB-MRI showed low accuracy in assessment of clinical CR (sensitivity 4.5%, specificity 98.1%, PPV 50.0%, NPV 71.2% in all three imaging criteria). As to the clinical objective response, the diagnostic accuracy was higher in MDA-DWI criteria than RECIST 1.1 and MDA criteria (sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV, 84.2%/94.4%/98.0%/65.4, 54.4%/100%/100%/40.9, and 61.4%/94.4%/97.2%/43.6%, respectively).

Conclusions: In the imaging response assessment of multiple myeloma, WB-MRI showed excellent performance in the evaluation of PD, but not in the assessment of CR or objective response. When adding DWI to imaging response criteria, diagnostic accuracy for objective response was improved and agreement between imaging and clinical responses was increased.

Citing Articles

Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities in the Era of Anti-Amyloid Beta Monoclonal Antibodies for Alzheimer's Disease: Recent Updates on Clinical and Imaging Features and MRI Monitoring.

Jeong S, Suh C, Kim S, Lemere C, Lim J, Lee J Korean J Radiol. 2024; 25(8):726-741.

PMID: 39109501 PMC: 11306001. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2024.0105.


Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future.

Rodriguez-Laval V, Lumbreras-Fernandez B, Aguado-Bueno B, Gomez-Leon N J Clin Med. 2024; 13(1).

PMID: 38202271 PMC: 10780302. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010264.


[Clinical Application and Limitations of Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS)].

Kim D, Park S, Jung J J Korean Soc Radiol. 2023; 84(1):51-74.

PMID: 36818710 PMC: 9935961. DOI: 10.3348/jksr.2022.0154.


[Imaging for Multiple Myeloma according to the Recent International Myeloma Working Group Guidelines: Analysis of Image Acquisition Techniques and Response Evaluation in Whole-Body MRI according to MY-RADS].

Son A, Chung H J Korean Soc Radiol. 2023; 84(1):150-169.

PMID: 36818702 PMC: 9935955. DOI: 10.3348/jksr.2021.0179.


Functional Imaging in the Evaluation of Treatment Response in Multiple Myeloma: The Role of PET-CT and MRI.

Santoni A, Simoncelli M, Franceschini M, Ciofini S, Fredducci S, Caroni F J Pers Med. 2022; 12(11).

PMID: 36579605 PMC: 9696713. DOI: 10.3390/jpm12111885.


References
1.
Horger M, Fritz J, Thaiss W, Ditt H, Weisel K, Haap M . Comparison of qualitative and quantitative CT and MRI parameters for monitoring of longitudinal spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2017; 47(3):351-361. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-017-2827-y. View

2.
Giles S, Messiou C, Collins D, Morgan V, Simpkin C, West S . Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology. 2014; 271(3):785-94. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131529. View

3.
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

4.
Lin C, Luciani A, Belhadj K, Deux J, Kuhnowski F, Maatouk M . Multiple myeloma treatment response assessment with whole-body dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2010; 254(2):521-31. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090629. View

5.
Terpos E, Dimopoulos M, Moulopoulos L . The Role of Imaging in the Treatment of Patients With Multiple Myeloma in 2016. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35:e407-17. DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_159074. View