You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Evaluation of Treatment Response in Multiple Myeloma: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor: Adele Santoni ,
Martina Simoncelli
,
Marta Franceschini
,
Sara Ciofini
,
Sara Fredducci
, Federico Caroni , Vincenzo Sammartano , Monica Bocchia , Alessandro Gozzetti

Bone disease is among the defining characteristics of symptomatic Multiple Myeloma (MM). Imaging techniques such as fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography–computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can identify plasma cell proliferation and quantify disease activity. This function renders these imaging tools as suitable not only for diagnosis, but also for the assessment of bone disease after treatment of MM patients. 

  • multiple myeloma
  • PET/CT
  • MRI

1. Introduction

Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a plasma-cell malignancy in which a single clone of plasma cells proliferates and produces a monoclonal protein (MC). Myeloma clonal plasma cells accumulate in the bone marrow (BM), resulting in diffuse skeletal involvement, hypercalcemia, anemia and extramedullary localizations [1][2][3][4]. In addition, MC and free-light chains are nephrotoxic and may result in renal failure. Many advances have been made in MM treatment even in aggressive forms of disease [5][6][7][8][9]. Early diagnosis of organ damage has recently been improved. Symptomatic MM is described by the typical CRAB features (hypercalcemia, renal failure, anemia, bone disease) where bone disease is now referred to as >1 osteolytic lesion (≥5 mm) on skeletal radiography, computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) [10][11] as one of the myeloma defining events (MDE) defined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) which can identify active disease and the need to treat patients [12]. In addition, creatinine 2 mg/dL could be a MDE although renal involvement can be seen at the MGRS stage (monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS)) [13]. Bone disease is indeed a mainstay of active MM; hence, it is identified in 70% of patients and invariably indicates a need to start therapy [14]. The established imaging modalities to manage MM patients are CT, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and PET/CT, whereas there is consensual agreement on their replacement of the old X-ray skeletal survey because of its significantly lower sensitivity for bone lesions’ detection. Recently, MRI and PET/CT have acquired a major role with respect to low dose CT. These imaging modalities can functionally quantify bone disease before bone damage, and lessons can be obtained from the treatment of lymphomas [15]. MM is characterized by the focal and patchy distribution of plasma cells in the BM, the focal lesions (FLs) identified with MRI and PET/CT are focal accumulations of plasma cells and they are different from the lytic lesions detected with low dose CT, where bone destruction has already occurred [16]. FLs are defined as focal bone uptake on two consecutive PET slices without evident changes on CT for PET/CT and a low T1-weighted signal and a high T2w-STIR signal on MRI [17].

2. PET/CT: Methods and Role in Response to Therapy in MM

18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT is considered the best functional imaging technique in defining the metabolic activity of bone lesions, plasmacytomas and extra-medullary disease (EMD) caused by MM. 18F-FDG is currently the most used tracer for MM and it is a radiolabeled glucose analogue in which the C-2 hydroxyl group is replaced by the positron-emitting fluorine-18 atom (18F) [18]. FDG is taken up by high-glucose-using cells through the glucose transporters GLUT1 and GLUT3 and it is phosphorylated by a hexokinase to 18F-FDG-6P, that is stored in cells as it cannot be further metabolized. After intravenous administration, 18F-FDG reaches an equilibrium state in 60 min and it starts to decay in 80–90 min, allowing an accurate assessment of glucose metabolic activity. MM plasma cells usually overexpress hexokinase-2, displaying a higher glycolytic activity than surrounding cells [17]. PET positivity is defined as the presence of areas of 18F-FDG uptake higher than the liver uptake, that is taken as a background with a Deauville score of 4. Consequently, PET positive lesions have a Deauville Score of 4 or 5 [19]. For a better localization of metabolically active FLs, PET is usually combined with low dose CT (120 kV, 80 mA). Mostly the field of view (FOV) includes the region spanning from the skull to the femur, encompassing the upper limbs, and there are only a few centers using whole body (WB) PET/CT [20]. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is used to clarify a dubious diagnosis between MM and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), when low-dose WB-CT and WB-MRI are inconclusive but there is a strong suspicion of active MM, because of the high cost of this imaging technique. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is also used for the diagnosis of suspected extramedullary solitary plasmacytoma [6] and in the prognostic assessment of newly diagnosed MM (NDMM): more than three FLs [21], EMD and a maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) greater than 4.2 are related to a poor outcome [20]. These three factors are independently associated with progression-free survival (PFS). High FDG-avidity (SUV > 4.2) and the presence of EMD are also correlated with shorter overall survival (OS) [22]. The main implication of 18F-FDG-PET/CT is in the assessment of treatment response. After the first line therapy, patients undergo a repeat bone marrow (BM) aspiration, for the evaluation of MRD, and 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the only imaging technique able to distinguish between active and inactive FLs, with high prognostic value: 18F-FDG uptake in bone lesions has higher sensitivity in detecting tumor residual disease than immunofixation electrophoresis [23] and appears to be closely related with PFS and OS. In the standardization of the 18F-FDG-PET/CT Deauville criteria for MM, Zamagni et al. defined the complete metabolic response as the 18F-FDG uptake minus the liver activity in BM sites and FLs previously involved (including extramedullary and para-medullary disease (DS score 1–3)) and partial metabolic response as the decrease in number and/or activity of BM/FLs present at baseline, but persistence of lesion(s) with an uptake greater than the liver activity (DS score 4 or 5). The metabolic disease is defined as stable if there are no significant changes in BM/FLs and progressive when new FLs appear compared with baseline [24].

2.1. New Tracers

The sensitivity of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in bone lesions’ detection at diagnosis ranges from 59% to 100%, whereas the specificity ranges from 75% to 82% [20]. False positive can be obtained in the case of other malignancies, inflammation, infections, fractures, post-surgical areas (including BM biopsy), recent chemotherapy infusion and use of growth factors, therefore PET/CT should be performed at least one month after the use of these agents [24]. False negative can be obtained in the case of administration of high-dose steroids, hyperglycemia [20] and in cases of a lack of hexokinase that can occur in 10–15% of MM patients. To overcome this limitation, new tracers have been evaluated for patients with MM, specific for plasma cells or proliferating cells or conjugated with anti-CD38 Daratumumab (immune PET tracers). Lipid tracers, such as choline and acetate, were first investigated. Choline is an indicator of the synthesis of plasma membrane, and it can be labelled with 11C and 18F, becoming more sensitive than 18F-FDG [25][26]. Indeed, acetate is converted in acetyl-CoA in Krebs’ cycle, producing energy for cells and it is also considered more sensitive than 18F-FDG [27][28]. Amino acid tracers are used by plasma cells in the synthesis of new proteins, such as immunoglobulins, and they can be more specific biomarkers of active MM. Among them, 11C-methionine is more sensitive than 18F-FDG and 11C-choline [29], even if it has a short half-life (20 min) and an on-site cyclotron is necessary to produce it [30]. Stokke et al. demonstrated that 18F-fluciclovine, a leucine analogous, is also a promising tracer for MM, reaching a similar uptake pattern and similar sensitivity, with a half-life of 110 min [31]. 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine could be used as a tracer, but it is less sensitive than 11C-metionine and 18F-FDG, having minimal transportation into plasma cells [32]. Nucleoside tracers are related to the rate of DNA synthesis, reflecting highly proliferating cells. 11C-thiothymidine sensitivity is similar to the 11C-methionine one and it is better than 18F-FDG sensitivity, especially during the early stage of the disease [33]. 18F-fluorothymidine was investigated as a new tracer, but it is not considered a useful biomarker for MM [34]. 18F-fluoride reflects the early phase of bone calcification, but results concerning the diagnostic assessment in MM are divergent [35]. 89Zr-bevacizumab, a radiolabeled antibody directed to the VEGF receptor, is uniformly expressed on plasma cells and it could be useful for the detection of MM [36]. In the end, there are also tracers targeting molecules expressed on cells surface such as CD38, expressed on plasma cells, and CXCR4, a chemokine expressed on hematopoietic stem cells. The activation of CXCR4/stromal-derived factor 1 axis correlates with bone activation, playing an important role in MM. Pentixafor radiolabeled with gallium-68 is used to target CXCR4. Its sensitivity compared to 18F-FDG is not clear, but a positive 68Ga-pentixafor has a negative prognostic significance, with a poorer OS [37]. CD38 is highly expressed on all MM cells and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (Daratumumab) can be labelled with Zirconium-89 or Copper-64 to target them, but data are not yet available from recent clinical trials.

2.2. PET/CT and MRD in MM

Due to the patchy dissemination of the disease, MRD evaluation in the BM could sometimes lead to false negative results in the presence of minimal disease after therapy [38]. In the absence of recognized new tools for blood MRD evaluation, PET is a valid technique able to identify focal active metabolic lesions that can be reservoirs for MM relapse.
MRD negative is a deeper level of response than a complete response, that requires the absence of phenotypically abnormal clonal plasma cells from BM aspirates, detected by next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, MM is a heterogenous disease with patchy infiltration and EMD is not uncommon. The association between BM analysis and 18F-FDG-PET/CT leads to a more accurate assessment of response after a treatment line with the highest prognostic value, well related to PFS and OS. In fact, although MRD-negativity is associated with improved outcomes, in MRD-negative patients relapse still occurs, potentially due to the presence of focal bone disease that could be detected with 18F-FDG-PET/CT. The IFM 2009 trial showed patients who were double negative (with no residual disease assessed by NGF and negative PET/CT) achieving better PFS than patients who were not double negative [37]. Alonso et al. selected 103 NDMM patients who received their first-line therapy, underwent BM MRD assessment with NGF and 18F-FDG-PET/CT evaluation at diagnosis and one month after the end of the treatment. It was observed that patients MRD-/PET- had the best 4-years OS (94.2%) and PFS (92 months), patients MRD+/PET− had a not significant difference in 4-years OS (100%) but a shorter PFS (45 months) and PET+ patients had the worst 4-years OS (73.8%) and PFS (28 months) [39].

2.3. Clinical Studies

Numerous studies evaluated the accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the therapy response assessment, even if they are not exactly concordant at the time of evaluation and in the interpretation of results. The main disadvantages of the 18F-FDG-PET/CT, beyond the high cost and the limited availability, are the lack of standardization criteria and of interobserver reproducibility in the interpretation of results. More than 30 clinical studies on the prognostic role of PET/CT in the evaluation of treatment response were found.

3. MRI: Methods and Role in Response to Therapy in MM

3.1. MRI and MRD in MM

NGF with functional imaging has been used to define responses in MM [40], though the role of MRI to complement MRD needs confirmation. The use of MRI for the assessment of MRD is not clear because there are no data for a comparison with FDG-PET/CT in evaluating MRD after therapy. Moving forward, it is crucial to standardize guidelines about the use of imaging techniques and the time point to be assessed. It is necessary to establish the role of MRI to the definition of MRD with new comparative studies.

3.2. Clinical Studies

Although IMWG guidelines indicate the use of DWI-MRI to evaluate plasma cell disorders, the use of MRI to assess response to treatment is a matter of debate and it is investigated in several clinical studies, in small series of patients. In recent years, some studies have researched the role of DWI in treatment response assessment in patients with MM. They have proven that DWI is more sensitive than the conventional MRI and it gives a quantitative and non-invasive evaluation of BM after therapy, distinguishing responders from non-responders. Some of these studies also hypothesize that WB-DWI could be equivalent or superior to PET/CT assessment of the response and the MRD. To shed light on the role of WB-MRI, a multidisciplinary, international, and expert panel of radiologists, medical physicists and hematologists developed the Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS) imaging recommendations [41].

4. Comparison of PET/CT and Functional MRI in Response Evaluation in MM

Evidence shows that both MRI and PET/CT have significant potential in evaluating treatment response as separate tools. Specifically, data from PET/CT studies point out its prognostic and predictive value whereas MRI emerges as particularly sensitive technique to detect myeloma FLs and background marrow infiltration, with the addition of DWI bringing further improvement in sensitivity and potential for differentiation between active and treated disease in cases of disease relapse.
Several studies have also investigated which modality performs better in the setting of treatment-response evaluation. A recent comparative meta-analysis of Yokoyama et al. has shown the major impact of PET/CT rather than MRI in response to therapy (sensitivity 80% vs. 20%, specificity 58% vs. 83%) [42]. Other studies reach the same conclusions even with different data (same sensitivity 75%, specificity 86% vs. 43%) [43]. The prognostic value of PET/CT and WB-MRI has also been investigated for response evaluation at different time points of treatment, finding only PET/CT significantly able to predict response to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the post-induction phase [31][33][44] and OS and PFS in the post-transplant evaluation [45]. The glucose metabolism exploited by FDG-PET/CT rapidly follows the dynamic change of FLs during treatment, whereas the persistence of non-viable lesions on MRI images may explain its reduced specificity and the lack of prognostic value [46][47]. Sometimes active lesions may be misinterpreted as scar tissue, affecting sensitivity [42]. Implementation with DWI technique increases the specificity of MRI sections [43], though it seems to not gain advantage over PET/CT in predictive value. On the other hand, another recent meta-analysis of data from 12 comparative studies assessing the accuracy of WB-MRI and FDG-PET/CT, identify the first as the most sensitive technique (90% vs. 66%) for determining response through earlier detection of post-treatment recurrence, though the finding was not significant. Similar evidence is reported in a retrospective study comparing PET/CT and MRI in different treatment phases [46]. These results could also be biased from the delayed healing of pre-treatment myeloma lesions which can still be detected from MRI. The bias has been addressed by the meta-analysis investigator Rama et al. by considering five studies comparing PET/CT with DWI-WB-MRI. The use of DWI though displayed the same specificity of WB-MRI (57% vs. 56%), not overcoming the limitation.

Comparison of PET/CT and Functional MRI for MRD in MM

Concerning comparison of PET/CT and functional MRI for MRD assessment, clinical studies are few. According to IMWG, PET/CT represents the best tool for MRD evaluation as it has been shown to predict survival after therapy. However, most clinical trials using PET/CT as MRD tool are still ongoing and preliminary data do not show significant concordance between imaging and BM assessment [48]. A recent study from Rashe et al. evaluating the combination of functional imaging and flow cytometry for MRD evaluation on a cohort of patients undergoing first or successive lines of therapy, proposed DWI-MRI as complementary imaging tool to PET/CT, as the PFS of patients with FLs detected with DWI-MRI or PET/CT were not statistically significant (3.4 years vs. 3 years). Furthermore, the study identified that the combination of both approaches yielded the highest rate of FLs detection in patients achieving CR [49].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jpm12111885

References

  1. Hoffbrand, A.V.; Higgs, D.R.; Keeling, D.M.; Mehta, A.B. Postgraduated Hematology, 7th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; p. 537.
  2. Gozzetti, A.; Candi, V.; Papini, G.; Bocchia, M. Therapeutic advancements in multiple myeloma. Front. Oncol. 2014, 4, 241.
  3. Sammartano, V.; Cerase, A.; Venanzi, V.; Mazzei, M.A.; Vangone, B.E.; Gentili, F.; Chiarotti, I.; Bocchia, M.; Gozzetti, A. Central Nervous System Myeloma and Unusual Extramedullary Localizations: Real Life Practical Guidance. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 934240.
  4. Gozzetti, A.; Cerase, A.; Lotti, F.; Rossi, D.; Palumbo, A.; Petrucci, M.T.; Patriarca, F.; Nozzoli, C.; Cavo, M.; Offidani, M.; et al. GIMEMA (Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto) Myeloma Working Party Extramedullary intracranial localizations of multiple myeloma and treatment with novel agents: A retrospective survey of 50 patients. Cancer 2012, 118, 1574–1584.
  5. Gozzetti, A.; Cerase, A. Novel agents in CNS myeloma treatment. Cent. Nerv. Syst. Agents Med. Chem. 2014, 14, 23–27.
  6. Castillo, J.J.; Jurczyszyn, A.; Brozova, L.; Crusoe, E.; Czepiel, J.; Davila, J.; Dispenzieri, A.; Eveillard, M.; Fiala, M.A.; Ghobrial, I.M.; et al. IgM myeloma: A multicenter retrospective study of 134 patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2017, 92, 746–751.
  7. Jurczyszyn, A.; Olszewska-Szopa, M.; Hungria, V.; Crusoe, E.; Pika, T.; Delforge, M.; Leleu, X.; Rasche, L.; Nooka, A.K.; Druzd-Sitek, A.; et al. Cutaneous involvement in multiple myeloma: A multi-institutional retrospective study of 53 patients. Leuk. Lymphoma 2016, 57, 2071–2076.
  8. Jurczyszyn, A.; Radocha, J.; Davila, J.; Fiala, M.A.; Gozzetti, A.; Grząśko, N.; Robak, P.; Hus, I.; Waszczuk-Gajda, A.; Guzicka-Kazimierczak, R.; et al. Prognostic indicators in primary plasma cell leukaemia: A multicentre retrospective study of 117 patients. Br. J. Haematol. 2018, 180, 831–839.
  9. Avivi, I.; Cohen, Y.C.; Suska, A.; Shragai, T.; Mikala, G.; Garderet, L.; Seny, G.M.; Glickman, S.; Jayabalan, D.S.; Niesvizky, R.; et al. Hematogenous extramedullary relapse in multiple myeloma-a multicenter retrospective study in 127 patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2019, 94, 1132–1140.
  10. Kosmala, A.; Bley, T.; Petritsch, B. Imaging of Multiple Myeloma. Rofo 2019, 191, 805–816.
  11. Rajkumar, S.V. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am. J. Hematol. 2020, 95, 548–567.
  12. Kyle, R.A.; Gertz, M.A.; Witzig, T.E.; Lust, J.A.; Lacy, M.Q.; Dispenzieri, A.; Fonseca, R.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Offord, J.R.; Larson, D.R.; et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2003, 78, 21–33.
  13. Gozzetti, A.; Guarnieri, A.; Zamagni, E.; Zakharova, E.; Coriu, D.; Bittrich, M.; Pika, T.; Tovar, N.; Schutz, N.; Ciofini, S.; et al. Monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS): Real-world data on outcomes and prognostic factors. Am. J. Hematol 2022, 97, 877–884.
  14. Hillengass, J.; Moulopoulos, L.A.; Delorme, S.; Koutoulidis, V.; Mosebach, J.; Hielscher, T.; Drake, M.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Oestergaard, B.; Abildgaard, N.; et al. Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: A study of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood Cancer J. 2017, 7, e599.
  15. Zinzani, P.L.; Zompatori, M.; Bendandi, M.; Battista, G.; Fanti, S.; Barbieri, E.; Gherlinzoni, F.; Rimondi, M.R.; Frezza, G.; Pisi, P.; et al. Monitoring bulky mediastinal disease with gallium-67, CT-scan and magnetic resonance imaging in Hodgkin’s disease and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 1996, 22, 131–135.
  16. Hillengass, J.; Usmani, S.; Rajkumar, S.V.; Durie, B.G.M.; Mateos, M.V.; Lonial, S.; Joao, C.; Anderson, K.C.; García-Sanz, R.; Riva, E.; et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019, 20, e346.
  17. Mesguich, C.; Hulin, C.; Latrabe, V.; Lascaux, A.; Bordenave, L.; Hindié, E. 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Comparative Review. Front. Nucl. Med. 2022, 1, 808627.
  18. Lecouvet, F.E.; Vekemans, M.C.; Van Den Berghe, T.; Verstraete, K.; Kirchgesner, T.; Acid, S.; Malghem, J.; Wuts, J.; Hillengass, J.; Vandecaveye, V.; et al. Imaging of treatment response and minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: State of the art WB-MRI and PET/CT. Skeletal. Radiol. 2022, 51, 59–80.
  19. Zamagni, E.; Nanni, C.; Gay, F.; Dozza, L.; Rota Scalabrini, D.; Omedé, P.; Ribolla, R.; Galli, M.; Racca, M.; Zambello, R.; et al. MRD Evaluation By PET/CT According to Deauville Criteria Combined with Multiparameter Flow Cytometry in Newly Diagnosed Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients Enrolled in the Phase II Randomized Forte Trial. Blood 2019, 134, 4321.
  20. Filho, A.G.O.; Carneiro, B.C.; Pastore, D.; Silva, I.P.; Yamashita, S.R.; Consolo, F.D.; Hungria, V.T.M.; Sandes, A.F.; Gil Rizzatti, E.; Nico, M.A.C. Whole-body imaging of multiple myeloma: Diagnostic criteria. Radiographics 2019, 39, 1077–1097.
  21. Abe, Y.; Narita, K.; Kobayashi, H.; Kitadate, A.; Takeuchi, M.; O’uchi, T.; Matsue, K. Medullary Abnormalities in Appendicular Skeletons Detected With 18F-FDG PET/CT Predict an Unfavorable Prognosis in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients with High-Risk Factors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019, 213, 918–924.
  22. Zamagni, E.; Patriarca, F.; Nanni, C.; Zannetti, B.; Englaro, E.; Pezzi, A.; Tacchetti, P.; Buttignol, S.; Perrone, G.; Brioli, A.; et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2012, 120, 2349.
  23. Li, Y.; Liu, J.; Huang, B.; Chen, M.; Diao, X.; Li, J. Application of PET/CT in treatment response evaluation and recurrence prediction in patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 25637–25649.
  24. Zamagni, E.; Tacchetti, P.; Barbato, S.; Cavo, M. Role of Imaging in the Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3519.
  25. Nanni, C.; Zamagni, E.; Cavo, M.; Rubello, D.; Tacchetti, P.; Pettinato, C.; Farsad, M.; Castellucci, P.; Ambrosini, V.; Montini, G.C.; et al. 11C-choline vs. 18F-FDG PET/CT in assessing bone involvement in patients with multiple myeloma. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2007, 5, 68.
  26. Cassou-Mounat, T.; Balogová, S.; Nataf, V.; Calzada, M.; Huchet, V.; Kerrou, K.; Devaux, J.-Y.; Mohty, M.; Talbot, J.-N.; Garderet, L. 18F-fluorocholine versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for PET/CT imaging in patients with suspected relapsing or progressive multiple myeloma: A pilot study. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2016, 43, 1995–2004.
  27. Ho, C.L.; Chen, S.; Leung, Y.L.; Cheng, T.; Wong, K.N.; Cheung, S.K.; Liang, R.; Chim, C.S. 11C-acetate PET/CT for metabolic characterization of multiple myeloma: A comparative study with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J. Nucl. Med. 2014, 55, 749–752.
  28. Ngai, C.; Kumar, S.; Chi-Lai Ho, G.; Chen, S.; Chim, C.S. Case series: MRD negativity assessment using 11C-Acetate PET with 3-weekly daratumumab-based quadruplet induction in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Ther. Adv. Hematol. 2021, 12, 20406207211030369.
  29. Lapa, C.; Kircher, M.; da Via, M.C.; Schreder, M.; Rasche, L.; Kortüm, K.M.; Einsele, H.; Buck, A.K.; Hänscheid, H.; Samnick, S. Comparison of 11C-Choline and 11C-Methionine PET/CT in Multiple Myeloma. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2019, 44, 620–624.
  30. Revheim, M.-E.; Stokke, C.; Nørgaard, J.N.; Phillips, H.F.; Sherwani, A.G.; Schjesvold, F.; Connelly, J.P. New Targets for PET Imaging of Myeloma. Hemato 2021, 2, 727–738.
  31. Stokke, C.; Nørgaard, J.N.; Feiring Phillips, H.; Sherwani, A.; Nuruddin, S.; Connelly, J.; Schjesvold, F.; Revheim, M.E. Comparison of fluciclovine and FDG PET/CT in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2022, 24, 842–851.
  32. Lückerath, K.; Lapa, C.; Spahmann, A.; Jörg, G.; Samnick, S.; Rosenwald, A.; Einsele, H.; Knop, S.; Buck, A.K. Targeting paraprotein biosynthesis for non-invasive characterization of myeloma biology. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e84840.
  33. Okasaki, M.; Kubota, K.; Minamimoto, R.; Miyata, Y.; Morooka, M.; Ito, K.; Ishiwata, K.; Toyohara, J.; Inoue, T.; Hirai, R.; et al. Comparison of (11)C-4′-thiothymidine, (11)C-methionine, and (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of active lesions of multiple myeloma. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2015, 29, 224–232.
  34. Sachpekidis, C.; Goldschmidt, H.; Kopka, K.; Kopp-Schneider, A.; Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, A. Assessment of glucose metabolism and cellular proliferation in multiple myeloma: A first report on combined 18F-FDG and 18F-FLT PET/CT imaging. EJNMMI Res. 2018, 8, 28.
  35. Oosting, S.F.; Brouwers, A.H.; van Es, S.C.; Nagengast, W.B.; Oude Munnink, T.H.; Lub-de Hooge, M.N.; Hollema, H.; de Jong, J.R.; de Jong, I.J.; de Haas, S.; et al. 89Zr-bevacizumab PET visualizes heterogeneous tracer accumulation in tumor lesions of renal cell carcinoma patients and differential effects of antiangiogenic treatment. J. Nucl. Med. 2015, 56, 63–69.
  36. Kuyumcu, S.; Isik, E.G.; Tiryaki, T.O.; Has-Simsek, D.; Sanli, Y.; Buyukkaya, F.; Özkan, Z.G.; Kalayoglu-Besisik, S.; Unal, S.N. Prognostic significance of 68Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT in multiple myeloma recurrence: A comparison to 18F-FDG PET/CT and laboratory results. Ann. Nucl. Med. 2021, 35, 1147–1156.
  37. Moreau, P.; Zweegman, S.; Perrot, A.; Hulin, C.; Caillot, D.; Facon, T.; Leleu, X.; Belhadj, K.; Karlin, L.; Benboubker, L.; et al. Evaluation of the Prognostic Value of Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT) at Diagnosis and Follow-up in Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (TE NDMM) Patients Treated in the Phase 3 Cassiopeia Study: Results of the Cassiopet Companion Study. Blood 2019, 134, 692.
  38. Gozzetti, A.; Raspadori, D.; Bacchiarri, F.; Sicuranza, A.; Pacelli, P.; Ferrigno, I.; Tocci, D.; Bocchia, M. Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma: State of the Art and Applications in Clinical Practice. J. Pers. Med. 2020, 10, 120.
  39. Alonso, R.; Cedena, M.T.; Gómez-Grande, A.; Ríos, R.; Moraleda, J.M.; Cabañas, V.; Moreno, M.J.; López-Jiménez, J.; Martín, F.; Sanz, A.; et al. Imaging and bone marrow assessments improve minimal residual disease prediction in multiple myeloma. Am. J. Hematol. 2019, 94, 853–861.
  40. Böckle, D.; Tabares, P.; Zhou, X.; Schimanski, S.; Steinhardt, M.J.; Bittrich, M.; Seebacher, E.; Ulbrich, M.; Wilnit, A.; Metz, C.; et al. Minimal residual disease and imaging-guided consolidation strategies in newly diagnosed and relapsed refractory multiple myeloma. Br. J. Haematol. 2022, 198, 515–522.
  41. Messiou, C.; Hillengass, J.; Delorme, S.; Lecouvet, F.E.; Moulopoulos, L.A.; Collins, D.J.; Blackledge, M.D.; Abildgaard, N.; Østergaard, B.; Schlemmer, H.-P.; et al. Guidelines for Acquisition, Interpretation, and Reporting of Whole-Body MRI in Myeloma: Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS). Radiology 2019, 291, 5–13.
  42. Yokoyama, K.; Tsuchiya, J.; Tateishi, U. Comparison of FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 706.
  43. Basha, M.A.A.; Hamed, M.A.G.; Refaat, R.; AlAzzazy, M.Z.; Bessar, M.A.; Mohamed, E.M.; Ahmed, A.F.; Tantawy, H.F.; Altaher, K.M.; Obaya, A.A.; et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT and whole-body MRI before and early after treatment of multiple myeloma: A prospective comparative study. Jpn. J Radiol. 2018, 36, 382–393.
  44. Giles, S.L.; Messiou, C.; Collins, D.J.; Morgan, V.A.; Simpkin, C.J.; West, S.; Davies, F.E.; Morgan, G.J.; deSouza, N.M. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Radiology 2014, 271, 785–794.
  45. Mesguich, C.; Latrabe, V.; Hulin, C.; Lascaux, A.; Bordenave, L.; Hindié, E.; Marit, G. Prospective Comparison of 18-FDG PET/CT and Whole-Body MRI with Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Evaluation of Treatment Response of Multiple Myeloma Patients Eligible for Autologous Stem Cell Transplant. Cancers 2021, 13, 1938.
  46. Spinnato, P.; Bazzocchi, A.; Brioli, A.; Nanni, C.; Zamagni, E.; Albisinni, U.; Cavo, M.; Fanti, S.; Battista, G.; Salizzoni, E. Contrast enhanced MRI and ¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: A comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012, 81, 4013–4018.
  47. Rama, S.; Suh, C.H.; Kim, K.W.; Durieux, J.C.; Ramaiya, N.H.; Tirumani, S.H. Comparative Performance of Whole-Body MRI and FDG PET/CT in Evaluation of Multiple Myeloma Treatment Response: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2022, 218, 602–613.
  48. Moreau, P.; Zamagni, E. MRD in multiple myeloma: More questions than answers? Blood Cancer J. 2017, 7, 639.
  49. Rasche, L.; Alapat, D.; Kumar, M.; Gershner, G.; McDonald, J.; Wardell, C.P.; Samant, R.; Van Hemert, R.; Epstein, J.; Williams, A.F.; et al. Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma. Leukemia 2019, 33, 1713–1722.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Academic Video Service
Feedback