Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Systematic Review of MRI, Scintigraphy, FDG-PET and PET/CT for Diagnosis of Multiple Myeloma Related Bone Disease - Which is Best?

  • Weng, Wan-Wen (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Dong, Meng-Jie (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Zhang, Jun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Yang, Jun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Xu, Qin (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Zhu, Yang-Jun (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University) ;
  • Liu, Ning-Hu (Department of Nuclear Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University)
  • Published : 2014.12.18
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of the published literature to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET, PTE/CT, MRI and scintigraphy for multiple myeloma related bone disease. Methods: Through a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. We estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), and two sample Z-tests were conducted to evaluate for differences in sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and the $Q^*$ index between any two diagnostic modalities. Results: A total of 17 studies were reviewed. The MRI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.88, specificity of 0.68, AUC of 0.897, and $Q^*$ index of 0.828, whereas for MIBI, the corresponding values were 0.98, 0.90, 0.991, and 0.962, respectively, and for bone scan, they were 066, 0.83, 0.805, and 0.740, respectively. The corresponding values of MIBI were 0.98, 0.90, 0.991, and 0.962, respectively. For PET and PET/CT, the values were 0.91, 0.69, 0.927 and 0.861, respectively. Statistically significant differences were not found in the sensitivity, specificity, AUC, and $Q^*$ index between MRI, scintigraphy, FDG-PET and PET/CT. Conclusions: On the condition that X ray is taken as a reference in our study, we suggested that FDG-PET, PTE/CT, MRI and scintigraphy are all associated with high detection rate of bone disease in patients with MM. Thus, in clinical practice, it is recommended that we could choose these tests according to the condition of the patient.

Keywords

References

  1. Alper E, Gurel M, Evrensel T, et al (2003), 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy in untreated stage III multiple myeloma: comparison with X-ray skeletal survey and bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun, 24, 537-42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006231-200305000-00009
  2. Balleari E, Villa G, Garre S, et al (2001). Technetium-99msestaMIBI scintigraphy in multiple myeloma and related gammopathies: a useful tool for the identification and followup of myeloma bone disease. Haematologica, 86, 78-84.
  3. Barlogie B, Shaughnessy J, Tricot G, et al (2004). Treatment of multiplemyeloma. Blood, 103, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2003-04-1045
  4. Baur-Melnyk A1, Buhmann S, Becker C, et al (2008). Wholebody MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 190, 1097-104. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2635
  5. Brian G.M. Durie, Alan D, et al (2002). Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET Identifies High-Risk Myeloma. J Nucl Med, 43, 1457-63.
  6. Catalano L, Andretta C, Pace L, et al (2005). Tc99m-sestaMIBI uptake in nonsecretory multiple myeloma. Hematology, 10, 335-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245330500067157
  7. Lin MG, Liu LP, Li CY, et al (2013). Scutellaria extract decreases the proportion of side population cells in a myeloma cell line by down-regulating the expression of ABCG2 protein. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 7179-86. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.12.7179
  8. Liu AJ, Zong H, Yang GZ, et al (2012). Significance of oligoclonal bands after stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 1483-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.4.1483
  9. Ludwig H, Fruhwald F, Tscholakoff D, et al (1987). Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in multiple myeloma. Lancet, 2, 364-6.
  10. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, et al (2006), Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 33, 525-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-005-0004-3
  11. Narquin S, Ingrand P, Azais I, et al (2013). Comparison of whole-body diffusion MRI and conventional radiological assessment in the staging of myeloma. Diagn Interv Imaging, 94, 629-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.005
  12. Peng A, Zhang X (2003). The skeletal radiography vs bone scintigraphy in assessment of bone destruction in Patients with multiple myeloma : a comparative study. J Imag Radiol, 4, 234-5
  13. Sager S, Ergul N, Ciftci H, et al (2011). The value of FDG PET/ CT in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol, 40, 843-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-010-1088-9
  14. Schirrmeister H, Buck AK, Bergmann L, Reske SN, Bommer M (2003), Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging of solitary plasmacytoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm, 18, 841-5. https://doi.org/10.1089/108497803770418382
  15. Shen Y, Zhou X (2008). Clinical assessment of SPECT bone scan in diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Appl J General Pract, 3, 238-9.
  16. Svaldi M, Tappa C, Gebert U, et al (2001). Technetium-99msestamibi scintigraphy: an alternative approach for diagnosis and follow-up of active myeloma lesions after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Ann Hematol, 80, 393-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002770100318
  17. Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K (1995), The value of magnetic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine. Br J Haematol, 91, 658-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.1995.tb05363.x
  18. Wolf MB, Murray F, Kilk K, et al (2004). Sensitivity of wholebody CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease. Eur J Radiol, 83, 1222-30.
  19. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, et al (2007). A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica, 92, 50-5. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.10554
  20. Zhang XZ, Su AL, Hu MQ, et al (2014). Elevated serum ferritin levels in patients with hematologic malignancies. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 6099-101. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.15.6099
  21. Zhu J, Cheng Y (2001). Value of MRI in screening multiple myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine. J Taishan Med Coll, 22, 276-8.

Cited by

  1. Pooled Analysis of Pomalidomide for Treating Patients with Multiple Myeloma vol.16, pp.8, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.8.3163
  2. Is there any complimentary role of F-18 NaF PET/CT in detecting of osseous involvement of multiple myeloma? A comparative study for F-18 FDG PET/CT and F-18 FDG NaF PET/CT vol.94, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-015-2410-3
  3. 18F-fluorocholine versus 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for PET/CT imaging in patients with suspected relapsing or progressive multiple myeloma: a pilot study vol.43, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3392-7
  4. PET Imaging for Initial Staging and Therapy Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Patients vol.18, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18020445
  5. Five common tumor biomarkers and CEA for diagnosing early gastric cancer vol.97, pp.19, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010577