Whole Body MRI Versus Skeletal Survey in Multple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (11) ◽  
pp. 5106-5106
Author(s):  
Johnny McHugh ◽  
Ciaran Johnston ◽  
Deirdre Duke ◽  
Patrick Thornton ◽  
Steve Eustace ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Bone involvement in myeloma is conventionally assessed by radiographic skeletal survey (plain x-rays of spine, skull, chest, pelvis and long bones). However this may not pick up bony involvement in all patients who may then present with serious complications of myeloma bone disease such as spinal cord compression. Whole body MRI may be better than skeletal survey at evaluating myeloma bone involvement. AIMS: To compare the evaluation of myeloma bone involvement by conventional radiographic skeletal survey (RSS) with whole body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: 35 patients with multiple myeloma (median age 68 yrs, range 46–81) underwent conventional RSS and whole body MRI. 19 of the patients had newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and 16 had relapsed multiple myeloma. The extent of myeloma bone involvement was evaluated in both RSS and MRI as follows: the body was divided up into ten areas: skull, cervical spine, ribs, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, pelvis, right arm, left arm, right leg, left leg. In each area the extent of myeloma bone involvement was scored in both RSS and MRI as follows: 0 = normal; 1 = one focus of abnormality; 2 = more than one focus of abnormality; 3 = diffuse disease. The scores for each of the ten areas were combined to give an overall score out of thirty for both RSS and MRI. RESULTS: 30 of the 35 patients (85.7%) had evidence of bone involvement on MRI. This compares with 22 out of the 35 (62.9%) on RSS. The mean score for the extent of myeloma bone involvement on MRI was significantly higher than that for RSS (MRI mean score: 15.5 out of 30 (median 17, range 0–30); RSS mean score: 5.5 out of 30 (median 3, range 0 to 24); p<0.001). MRI was superior to RSS in all ten areas evaluated both in terms of lesion detection and extent of disease. The greatest difference between MRI and RSS was seen in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, while the smallest difference was seen in the ribs and skull. Eight of the patients had no bone involvement detectable on RSS but did have bone involvement on MRI and this resulted in upstaging on Durie-Salmon staging in four patients. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: RSS has limited sensitivity and a significant ionising patient dose. It is a cumbersome procedure taking up to 30 minutes. Whole body MRI gives improved sensitivity and appreciation of anatomic location of disease. It is non-ionising and can be rapidly acquired at low cost. We conclude that whole body MRI is superior to conventional RSS in both the identification and evaluation of extent of bone involvement in multiple myeloma.

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1053
Author(s):  
Davide Ippolito ◽  
Teresa Giandola ◽  
Cesare Maino ◽  
Davide Gandola ◽  
Maria Ragusi ◽  
...  

The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of short whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) protocols for the overall assessment of bone marrow involvement in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), in comparison with standard whole-body MRI protocol. Patients with biopsy-proven MM, who underwent a WBMRI with full-body coverage (from vertex to feet) were retrospectively enrolled. WBMRI images were independently evaluated by two expert radiologists, in terms of infiltration patterns (normal, focal, diffuse, and combined), according to location (the whole skeleton was divided into six anatomic districts: skull, spine, sternum and ribs, upper limbs, pelvis and proximal two-thirds of the femur, remaining parts of lower limbs) and lytic lesions number (<5, 5–20, and >20). The majority of patients showed focal and combined infiltration patterns with bone lesions predominantly distributed in the spine and pelvis. As skull and lower limbs are less frequently involved by focal bone lesions, excluding them from the standard MRI protocol allows to obtain a shorter protocol, maintaining a good diagnostic value.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelechi Princewill ◽  
Sampson Kyere ◽  
Omer Awan ◽  
Michael Mulligan

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 549-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Hemke ◽  
Kai Yang ◽  
Jad Husseini ◽  
Miriam A. Bredella ◽  
F. Joseph Simeone

Abstract Objective To evaluate organ dose and total effective dose of whole-body low-dose CT (WBLDCT) performed on different CT-scanner models in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and to compare it to the effective dose of radiographic skeletal survey and representative diagnostic CTs. Material and methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 228 patients (47.4% females, mean age 67.9 ± 10.4 years, mean weight 81.8 ± 22.4 kg) who underwent WBLDCT for the work-up or surveillance of MM. Patients were scanned using one of six multi-detector CT-scanners. Organ doses and total effective doses per scan were calculated using a commercially available dose-management platform (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare, Leverkusen, Germany). The median effective dose was compared to radiographic skeletal survey and representative diagnostic CTs. Results The mean effective dose of our WBLDCT-protocol was 4.82 mSv. A significantly higher effective dose was observed in females compared to males (4.95 vs. 4.70 mSv, P = 0.002). Mean organ dose ranged from 3.72 mSv (esophagus) to 13.09 mSv (skeleton). Mean effective dose varied amongst different CT-scanners (range 4.34–8.37 mSv). The median effective dose of WBLDCT was more than twice the dose of a skeletal survey (4.82 vs. 2.04 mSv), 23% higher than a diagnostic contrast-enhanced chest CT (3.9 mSv), 46% lower than a diagnostic contrast-enhanced abdomen/pelvis CT (9.0 mSv), and 45% lower than a lumbar spine CT (8.7 mSv). Conclusions WBLDCT in MM has a higher effective dose than a radiographic skeletal survey, but a lower effective dose than diagnostic CTs of lumbar spine, abdomen and pelvis. This underlines the broad applicability of WBLDCT in the management of MM patients.


2013 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Duvauferrier ◽  
M. Valence ◽  
S. Patrat-Delon ◽  
E. Brillet ◽  
E. Niederberger ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S115
Author(s):  
Michael Gundesen ◽  
Jon Thor Asmussen ◽  
Einar Haukås ◽  
Michael Schubert ◽  
Niels Abildgaard ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Portet ◽  
Emma Owens ◽  
David Howlett

2013 ◽  
Vol 118 (6) ◽  
pp. 930-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Lucio Cascini ◽  
Carmela Falcone ◽  
Domenico Console ◽  
Antonino Restuccia ◽  
Marco Rossi ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document