The role of CT in PET/CT for assessing diffuse infiltration of bone marrow in multiple myeloma using the Durie‑Salmon PLUS staging system

Wang,Tiantian; Peng,Xin; Qiao,Wenli; Xing,Yan; Yang,Jiqin; Zhao,Jinhua

doi:10.3892/mco.2020.2039

The role of CT in PET/CT for assessing diffuse infiltration of bone marrow in multiple myeloma using the Durie‑Salmon PLUS staging system

Authors:
- Tiantian Wang
- Xin Peng
- Wenli Qiao
- Yan Xing
- Jiqin Yang
- Jinhua Zhao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Shanghai 200080, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou, Shandong 277500, P.R. China, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200080, P.R. China, Department of Nuclear Medicine, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia 750004, P.R. China
Published online on: April 30, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2020.2039
Pages: 13-18
Copyright: © Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

PET/CT has been identified as one of the routine methods for the assessment of multiple myeloma (ΜΜ) bone marrow infiltration. In the routine method of performing PET/CT, the 18F-Fludeoxyglucose (18F‑FDG) uptake in this disease is often used in the assessment of this condition, however CT diagnosis is not currently commonly used. The aim of the present study was to investigate the importance of CT in PET/CT for assessing diffuse infiltration (DI) of bone marrow in ΜΜ. MRI was used as a control in the present study, which is the gold standard for assessing DI of bone marrow and is divided into 3 levels: Mild, moderate and severe DI. Subsequently, a total of four combinations of PET and CT results were listed using the enumeration method for the evaluation of DI in the bone marrow. These combinations were respectively compared with the three levels of MR imaging to screen the most consistent method. The concordances of the new method and routine 18F‑FDG PET/CT for the assessment of DI with MR imaging were compared using the McNemar test, respectively. The results of the DI assessment from the two methods were verified by performing Durie‑Salmon (D-S) PLUS staging. Compared with MR imaging, the results were as follows: PET and CT exhibited negative results, suggesting mild DI; one of them was positive, suggesting moderate DI; and two were positive, suggesting severe DI. The results of concordance between two methods (new and routine) and MR imaging are indicated as follows: For the new method, McNemar test, P=0.513 and Kappa=0.745; for the routine 18F‑FDG PET/CT method, McNemar test, P=0.03 and Kappa=0.547. Re‑performance of D‑S PLUS staging presented the following results: New method, McNemar test, P=0.317 and Kappa=0.93; for the routine method, McNemar test, P=0.223 and Kappa=0.811. These findings indicated that the CT component of PET/CT could improve the concordance with MRI results in the assessment of DI, and the same results were obtained when D‑S PLUS staging was performed. The CT in PET/CT can enhance diagnostic accuracy in the assessment of DI by reducing the false negatives when compared with the routine 18F‑FDG method.

View Figures

View References

1	Durie BG, Kyle RA, Belch A, Bensinger W, Blade J, Boccadoro M, Child JA, Comenzo R, Djulbegovic B, Fantl D, et al: Myeloma management guidelines: A consensus report from the scientific advisors of the International Myeloma Foundation. Hematol J. 4:379–398. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
2	Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, Rajkumar SV, San Miguel J, Chanan-Khan A, Ludwig H, Joshua D, Mehta J, Gertz M, et al: Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: Report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 3. Blood. 117:4701–4705. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Durie BG and Salmon SE: A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 36:842–854. 1975.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: A report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol. 121:749–757. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
5	Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, Chari A, Jagannath S and Kostakoglu L: State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: Comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings. Eur J Radio. 83:2203–2223. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen II, Zweegman S, Hoekstra OS and Zijlstra JM: ¹⁸F-Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: A systematic review. Cancer. 118:1971–1981. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, Moreau P, Lentzsch S, Zweegman S, Hillengass J, Engelhardt M, Usmani SZ, Vesole DH, et al: Role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and management of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: A consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol. 18(e206-e217)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Chantry A, Kazmi M, Barrington S, Goh V, Mulholland N, Streetly M, Lai M and Pratt G: British Society for Haematology Guidelines. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of patients with myeloma. Br J Haematol. 178:380–393. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Nanni C, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bertone E, Bianchi A, Rensi M, Bellò M, Gallamini A, Patriarca F, Gay F, et al: Interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma (IMPeTUs): Final results. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 45:712–719. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, Richardson P, Caltagirone S, Lahuerta JJ, Facon T, et al: Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: A report from international myeloma working group. J Clin Oncol. 33:2863–2869. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, Kumar S, Hillengass J, Kastritis E, Richardson P, et al: International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 15(e538-e548)2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R and Reiser MF: Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 190:1097–1104. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Gariani J, Westerland O, Natas S, Verma H, Cook G and Goh V: Comparison of whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMR imaging) to whole body computed tomography (WBCT) or ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT) in patients with myeloma: Systematic review of diagnostic performance. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 124:66–72. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Terpos E, Kleber M, Engelhardt M, Zweegman S, Gay F, Kastritis E, van de Donk NW, Bruno B, Sezer O, Broijl A, et al: European Myeloma Network guidelines for the management of multiple myeloma-related complications. Haematologica. 100:1254–1266. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	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. 118:5989–5995. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, Shaughnessy JD Jr, van Rhee F, Anaissie E, Alpe T, Angtuaco E, Walker R, Epstein J, et al: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 114:2068–2076. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Nanni C, Zamagni E, Celli M, Caroli P, Ambrosini V, Tacchetti P, Brioli A, Zannetti B, Pezzi A, Pantani L, et al: The value of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients affected by multiple myeloma (MM): Experience with 77 patients. Clin Nucl Med. 38(e74-e79)2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Rasche L, Angtuaco E, McDonald JE, Buros A, Stein C, Pawlyn C, Thanendrarajan S, Schinke C, Samant R, Yaccoby S, et al: Low expression of hexokinase-2 is associated with false-negative FDG-positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma. Blood. 130:30–34. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Herrmann K, Schottelius M, Lapa C, Osl T, Poschenrieder A, Hänscheid H, Lückerath K, Schreder M, Bluemel C, Knott M, et al: First-in-human experience of CXCR4-Directed endoradiotherapy with ¹⁷⁷Lu- and ⁹⁰Y-Labeled pentixather in advanced-stage multiple myeloma with extensive intra- and extramedullary disease. J Nucl Med. 57:248–251. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	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. 29:224–232. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Lonial S and Kaufman JL: Non-secretory myeloma: A clinician's guide. Oncology (Williston Park). 27(924-928, 930)2013.PubMed/NCBI
22	Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A and Racanelli V: ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT: A review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med. 15:1–18. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar