Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma

Leukemia volume 23, pages 1545–1556 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Several imaging technologies are used for the diagnosis and management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Conventional radiography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear medicine imaging are all used in an attempt to better clarify the extent of bone disease and soft tissue disease in MM. This review summarizes all available data in the literature and provides recommendations for the use of each of the technologies. Conventional radiography still remains the ‘gold standard’ of the staging procedure of newly diagnosed and relapsed myeloma patients. MRI gives information complementary to skeletal survey and is recommended in MM patients with normal conventional radiography and in all patients with an apparently solitary plasmacytoma of bone. Urgent MRI or CT (if MRI is not available) is the diagnostic procedure of choice to assess suspected cord compression. Bone scintigraphy has no place in the routine staging of myeloma, whereas sequential dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans are not recommended. Positron emission tomography/CT or MIBI imaging are also not recommended for routine use in the management of myeloma patients, although both techniques may be useful in selected cases that warrant clarification of previous imaging findings, but such an approach should ideally be made within the context of a clinical trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA . Myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology and management. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1223–1231.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003; 78: 21–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Callander NS, Roodman GD . Myeloma bone disease. Semin Hematol 2001; 38: 276–285.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Raje N, Anderson KC . Multiple myeloma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2000; 1: 73–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Epstein J, Walker R . Myeloma and bone disease: “″the dangerous tango”. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2006; 4: 300–306.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Giuliani N, Rizzoli V, Roodman GD . Multiple myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology of osteoblast inhibition. Blood 2006; 108: 3992–3996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Terpos E, Sezer O, Croucher P, Dimopoulos MA . Myeloma bone disease and proteasome inhibition therapies. Blood 2007; 110: 1098–1104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wahlin A, Holm J, Osterman G, Norberg B . Evaluation of serial bone X-ray examination in multiple myeloma. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 385–387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, Patrikeos A, Hicks RJ, Prince HM . A comparison of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2004; 72: 32–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mulligan ME, Badros AZ . PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36: 5–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS . The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental observations. Clin Radiol 1967; 18: 158–162.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abildgaard N, Brixen K, Eriksen EF, Kristensen JE, Nielsen JL, Heickendorff L . Sequential analysis of biochemical markers of bone resorption and bone densitometry in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2004; 89: 567–577.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boccadoro M, Pileri A . Plasma cell dyscrasias: classification, clinical and laboratory characteristics, and differential diagnosis. Baillieres Clin Haematol 1995; 8: 705–719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Agren B, Lönnqvist B, Björkstrand B, Rudberg U, Aspelin P . Radiography and bone scintigraphy in bone marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 144–150.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kapadia SB . Multiple myeloma: a clinicopathologic study of 62 consecutively autopsied cases. Medicine 1980; 59: 380–392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chassang M, Grimaud A, Cucchi JM, Novellas S, Amoretti N, Chevallier P et al. Can low-dose computed tomographic scan of the spine replace conventional radiography? An evaluation based on imaging myelomas, bone metastases, and fractures from osteoporosis. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 225–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Durie BG, 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 1975; 36: 842–854.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins CD . Multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2004; 4 (Spec No A): S47–S53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos A, Smith T, Delasalle KB, Alexanian R . Risk of disease progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1993; 94: 57–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wisløff F, Andersen P, Andersson TR, Brandt E, Eika C, Fjaestad K et al. Incidence and follow-up of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. The myeloma project of health region I in Norway. II. Eur J Haematol 1991; 47: 338–341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 2003; 121: 749–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh J, Fairbairn KJ, Williams C, Das-Gupta EP, Russell NH, Byrne JL . Expert radiological review of skeletal surveys identifies additional abnormalities in 23% of cases: further evidence for the value of myeloma multi-disciplinary teams in the accurate staging and treatment of myeloma patients. Br J Haematol 2007; 137: 172–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mulligan M, Smith S, Talmi D . Whole body radiography for bone survey screening of cancer and myeloma patients. Cancer Invest 2008; 26: 916–922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Collins CD . Problems monitoring response in multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2005; 5 (Spec No A): S119–S126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Antevil JL, Sise MJ, Sack DI, Kidder B, Hopper A, Brown CV . Spiral computed tomography for the initial evaluation of spine trauma: a new standard of care? J Trauma 2006; 61: 382–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Obaid AK, Barleben A, Portal D, Lush S, Cinat M . Utility of plain film pelvic radiographs in blunt trauma patients in the emergency department. Am Surg 2006; 72: 951–954.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kyle RA . Multiple myeloma: current therapy and a glimpse of the future. Scand J Haematol 1985; 35: 38–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Scutellari PN, Addonisio G, Righi R, Giganti M . Diagnostic imaging of bone metastases. Radiol Med 2000; 100: 429–435.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U et al. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 180: 1429–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B, Vonthein R, Pereira P, Claussen CD et al. The benefit of using whole-body, low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up and therapy response monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 2007; 109: 1617–1626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U, Vonthein R, Trabold T, Heuschmid M et al. Whole-body low-dose multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54: 289–297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, Dang D, Stamato SK, Lee P et al. Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 2005; 237: 385–394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS . Efficacy of multidetector row computed tomography of the spine in patients with multiple myeloma: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31: 342–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chassang M, Grimaud A, Cucchi JM, Novellas S, Amoretti N, Chevallier P et al. Can low-dose computed tomographic scan of the spine replace conventional radiography? An evaluation based on imaging myelomas, bone metastases, and fractures from osteoporosis. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 225–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr HR, Reiser M . Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 56–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U et al. Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 1429–1436.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Joffe J, Williams MP, Cherryman GR, Gore M, McElwain TJ, Selby P . Magnetic resonance imaging in myeloma. Lancet 1988; 1: 1162–1163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Michaux JL, Lehmann F, Maldague BE et al. Vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma. Part II. Assessment of fracture risk with MR imaging of spinal bone marrow. Radiology 1997; 204: 201–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Jamart J, Maldague BE, Malghem J . Development of vertebral fractures in patients with multiple myeloma: does MRI enable recognition of vertebrae that will collapse? J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22: 430–436.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Gelderen WF, al-Hindawi M, Gale RS, Steward AH, Archibald CG . Significance of short tau inversion recovery magnetic resonance sequence in the management of skeletal injuries. Australas Radiol 1997; 41: 13–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Diamond TH, Hartwell T, Clarke W, Manoharan A . Percutaneous vertebroplasty for acute vertebral body fracture and deformity in multiple myeloma: a short report. Br J Haematol 2004; 124: 485–487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lafforgue P, Dahan E, Chagnaud C, Schiano A, Kasbarian M, Acquaviva PC . Early-stage avascular necrosis of the femoral head: MR imaging for prognosis in 31 cases with at least 2 years of follow-up. Radiology 1993; 187: 199–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA . Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in hematologic malignancies. Blood 1997; 90: 2127–2147.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Libshitz HI, Malthouse SR, Cunningham D, MacVicar AD, Husband JE . Multiple myeloma: appearance at MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 182: 833–837.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Weininger M, Lauterbach B, Knop S, Pabst T, Kenn W, Hahn D et al. Whole-body MRI of multiple myeloma: Comparison of different MRI sequences in assessment of different growth patterns. Eur J Radiol 2008; 69: 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moulopoulos LA, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A, Delasalle K, Weber D, Alexanian R et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1824–1828.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA, Leeds NE, Kim EE, Johnston DA et al. Multiple myeloma: spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 1992; 185: 833–840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF . Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 1029–1036.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Carlson K, Astrom G, Nyman R, Ahlstrom H, Simonsson B . MR imaging of multiple myeloma in tumour mass measurement of diagnosis and during treatment. Acta Radiol 1995; 36: 9–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Isoda H, Kojima H, Shimizu K, Kurokawa H, Ikeda K, Sawada S et al. Multiple myeloma: short T2 on MR imaging. Clin Imaging 2001; 25: 141–143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Baur A, Stäbler A, Lamerz R, Bartl R, Reiser M . Light chain deposition disease in multiple myeloma: MR imaging features correlated with histopathological findings. Skeletal Radiol 1998; 27: 173–176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ludwig H, Frühwald F, Tscholakoff D, Rasoul S, Neuhold A, Fritz E . Magnetic resonance imaging of the spine in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1987; 2: 364–366.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, Pache G, Uhl M, Saueressig U et al. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1005–1014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Maldague B, Ferrant A, Michaux JL et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999; 106: 35–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K . The value of magnetic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the lumbar spine. Br J Haematol 1995; 91: 658–660.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1097–1104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, Tricot G, Anaissie E, Shaughnessy Jr JD et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1121–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Offord JR et al. Prevalence of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1362–1369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Pepe J, Petrucci MT, Nofroni I, Fassino V, Diacinti D, Romagnoli E et al. Lumbar bone mineral density as the major factor determining increased prevalence of vertebral fractures in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Br J Haematol 2006; 134: 485–490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bellaïche L, Laredo JD, Lioté F, Koeger AC, Hamze B, Ziza JM et al. Magnetic resonance appearance of monoclonal gammopathies of unknown significance and multiple myeloma. The GRI Study Group. Spine 1997; 22: 2551–2557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Lecouvet FE, Labaisse M, Malghem J, Jamart J et al. Nonmyelomatous monoclonal gammopathy: correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory findings and spontaneous clinical outcome. Radiology 1997; 202: 247–251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Maniatis A, Alexanian R . Solitary plasmacytoma of bone and asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood 2000; 96: 2037–2044.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Weber D, Fuller L, Libshitz HI, Alexanian R . Magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of solitary plasmacytoma of bone. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1311–1315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Liebross RH, Ha CS, Cox JD, Weber D, Delasalle K, Alexanian R . Solitary bone plasmacytoma: outcome and prognostic factors following radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41: 1063–1067.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. He Y, Wheatley K, Clark O, Glasmacher A, Ross H, Djulbegovic B . Early versus deferred treatment for early stage multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 1: CD004023.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Terpos E, Rahemtulla A, Dimopoulos MA . Current treatment options for myeloma. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2005; 6: 1127–1142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos A, Smith T, Delasalle KB, Alexanian R . Risk of disease progression in asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1993; 94: 57–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL, Weber DM, Delasalle KB, Libshitz HI et al. Prognostic significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 251–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Mariette X, Zagdanski AM, Guermazi A, Bergot C, Arnould A, Frija J et al. Prognostic value of vertebral lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stage I multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1999; 104: 723–729.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Weber DM, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Delasalle KB, Smith T, Alexanian R . Prognostic features of asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997; 97: 810–814.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Alexanian R, Leeds NE, Libshitz HI . Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment. Radiology 1994; 193: 441–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Maldague BE . Magnetic resonance and computed tomography imaging in multiple myeloma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2001; 5: 43–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, Golli M, Dao TH, Jazaerli N et al. Detection of multiple myeloma involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 160: 1049–1052.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Lecouvet FE, Dechambre S, Malghem J, Ferrant A, Vande Berg BC, Maldague B . Bone marrow transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: prognostic significance of MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 91–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Hartman RP, Sundaram M, Okuno SH, Sim FH . Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 645–653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Van de Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Michaux L, Labaisse M, Malghem J, Jamart J et al. Stage I multiple myeloma: value of MR imaging of the bone marrow in the determination of prognosis. Radiology 1996; 201: 243–246.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Malghem J, Maldague BE, Jamart J et al. Stage III multiple myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology 1998; 209: 653–660.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Woolfenden JM, Pitt MJ, Durie BG, Moon TE . Comparison of bone scintigraphy and radiography in multiple myeloma. Radiology 1980; 134: 723–728.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Wahner HW, Kyle RA, Beabout JW . Scintigraphic evaluation of the skeleton in multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 1980; 55: 739–746.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Scutellari PN, Spanedda R, Feggi LM, Cervi PM . The value and limitations of total body scan in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: a comparison with conventional skeletal radiography. Haematologica 1985; 70: 136–142.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Agren B, Lönnqvist B, Björkstrand B, Rudberg U, Aspelin P . Radiography and bone scintigraphy in bone marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 144–150.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Maffioli L, Steevens J, Pauwels E, Bombardieri E . Applications of 99mTc-sestaMIBI in oncology. Tumori 1996; 82: 12–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Balleari E, Villa G, Garre S, Ghirlanda P, Agnese G, Carletto M et al. Technetium-99m-sestaMIBI scintigraphy in multiple myeloma and related gammopathies: a useful tool for the identification and follow-up of myeloma bone disease. Haematologica 2001; 86: 78–84.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Tiravola EB, Biassoni L, Britton KE, Kaleva N, Kouykin V, Malpas JS . The use of 99m-Tc-MIBI scanning in multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer 1996; 74: 1815–1820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Adams BK, Fataar A, Nizami MA . Technetium-99m-sestaMIBI uptake in myeloma. J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 1001–1002.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Fonti R, Del Vecchio S, Zannetti A, De Renzo A, Di Gennaro F, Catalano L et al. Bone marrow uptake of 99mTc-MIBI in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 1430–1432.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ak I, Aslan V, VArdareli E, Gulbas Z . Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile bone marrow imaging for predicting the levels of myeloma cells in bone marrow: correlation with CD38/CD138 expressing myeloma cells. Ann Hematol 2003; 82: 88–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Giovanella L, Taborelli M, Ceriani L, Zucca E, Cavalli F, Delaloye AB . 99mTc-sestamibi imaging and bone marrow karyotyping in the assessment of multiple myeloma and MGUS. Nucl Med Commun 2008; 29: 535–541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Villa G, Balleari E, Carletto M, Grosso M, Clavio M, Piccardo A et al. Staging and therapy monitoring of multiple myeloma by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy: a five year single center experience. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2005; 24: 355–361.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Alper E, Gurel M, Evrensel T, Ozkocaman V, Akbunar T, Demiray M . 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy in untreated stage III multiple myeloma: comparison with X-ray skeletal survey and bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24: 537–542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Hung GU, Tsai CC, Tsai SC, Lin WY . Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi and F-18 FDG-PET in the assessment of multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res 2005; 25: 4737–4741.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Mirzaei S, Filipits M, Keck A, Bergmayer W, Knoll P, Koehn H et al. Comparison of Technetium-99m-MIBI imaging with MRI for detection of spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma. BMC Nucl Med 2003; 3: 2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Nandurkar D, Kalff V, Turlakow A, Spencer A, Bailey MJ, Kelly MJ . Focal MIBI uptake is a better indicator of active myeloma than diffuse uptake. Eur J Haematol 2006; 76: 141–146.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Koutsikos J, Grigoraki V, Athanasoulis T, Velidaki A, Mamoulakis C, Zomas A et al. Scintigraphy with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile in multiple myeloma patients: correlation with the International Staging System. Hell J Nucl Med 2006; 9: 177–180.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Pace L, Catalano L, Del Vecchio S, De Renzo A, Fonti R, Salvatore B et al. Washout of sestamibi in predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 49: 281–285.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Athanasoulis T, Koutsikos J, Moulopoulos LA, Tsiouris S, Dimopoulos MA, Zerva C . Reverse of the differential uptake intensity of Tc-99m MIBI and Tc-99m V-DMSA by multiple myeloma lesions in response to therapy. Clin Nucl Med 2003; 28: 631–635.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Catalano L, Del Vecchio S, Petruzziello F, Fonti R, Salvatore B, Martorelli C et al. Sestamibi and FDG-PET scans to support diagnosis of jaw osteonecrosis. Ann Hematol 2007; 86: 415–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R . Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1199–1204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. D'Sa S, Abildgaard N, Tighe J, Shaw P, Hall-Craggs M . Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of myeloma. Br J Haematol 2007; 137: 49–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Nosàs-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K, Kiessling F, Bartl R, Zuna I et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 154–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD et al. Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET/FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 1999; 2: 159–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Durie BGM, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams C . Whole-body F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1457–1463.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155–2161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Larson SM . Practice-based evidence of the beneficial impact of positron emission tomography in clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2083–2084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/myeloma.pdf.

  106. Even-Sapir E, Mishani E, Flusser G, Metser U . 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2007; 37: 462–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Schirrmeister H, Buck AK, Bergmann L, Reske SN, Bommer M . Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging of solitary plasmacytoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003; 18: 841–845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Nanni C, Rubello D, Zamagni E, Castellucci P, Ambrosini V, Montini G et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in myeloma with presumed solitary plasmocytoma of bone. In Vivo 2008; 22: 513–517.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Salaun P-Y, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Boddet-Milin C, Moreau P, Bodere-Kraeber F . FDG-positron-emission tomography for staging and therapeutic assessment in patients with plasmacytoma. Haematologica 2008; 93: 1269–1271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O et al. 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 2007; 92: 50–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M, Sirignano C, Segreto S, Petruzziello F et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 195–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS . Comparative study of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of spinal bone marrow infiltration in untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Radiol 2008; 49: 427–435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Tosi P, Cangini D et al. 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 2006; 33: 525–531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Breyer III RJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ . Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2006; 35: 632–640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, Avril N, Herrero Y, Herna Ndez S . Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 671–687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Cook G, Wegner E, Fogelman I . Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34: 122–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Strobel K, Bode B, Lardinois D, Exner U . PET-positive fibrous dysplasia–a potentially misleading incidental finding in a patient with intimal sarcoma of the pulmonary artery. Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36 (Suppl 1): S24–S28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Badros A, Weikel D, Salama A, Goloubeva O, Schneider A, Rapoport A et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in multiple myeloma patients: clinical features and risk factors. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 945–952.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Talamo G, Angtuaco E, Walker RC, Dong L, Miceli MH, Zangari M et al. Avascular necrosis of femoral and/or humeral heads in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5217–5223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, Friesen C, Blumstein NM, Kocot D et al. Multiple myeloma: molecular imaging with 11C-methionine PET/CT – initial experience. Radiology 2007; 242: 498–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hunt E et al. Relationship between cancer type and impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1928–1935.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Lewis MK, Blake GM, Fogelman I . Patient dose in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 1994; 4: 11–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Masud T, Langley S, Wiltshire P, Doyle DV, Spector TD . Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis. BMJ 1993; 307: 172–173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Therapeutics, Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece

    M Dimopoulos & E Terpos

  2. Blood Bank and Stem Cell Processing Laboratory, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    R L Comenzo

  3. Institute of Hematology and Medical Oncology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    P Tosi

  4. Ankara University, Cebeci Yerleşkesi, Ankara, Turkey

    M Beksac

  5. Department of Hematology/Oncology, Charité-University Hospital, Berlin, Germany

    O Sezer

  6. Division of Multiple Myeloma, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA

    D Siegel

  7. Department of Hematology, University Hospital Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    H Lokhorst

  8. Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    S Kumar & S V Rajkumar

  9. Center for Lymphoma and Myeloma, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    R Niesvizky

  10. Department of Radiology, Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece

    L A Moulopoulos

  11. Aptium Oncology Inc., Cedars-Sinai Outpatient Cancer Center at the Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    B G M Durie

Authors
  1. M Dimopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E Terpos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R L Comenzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P Tosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M Beksac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. O Sezer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H Lokhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S V Rajkumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. R Niesvizky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. L A Moulopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. B G M Durie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

On behalf of the IMWG

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Dimopoulos.

Additional information

Submitted on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Submitted on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group:

Rafat Abonour, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Ray Alexanian, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA

Kenneth Anderson, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Michael Attal, Purpan Hospital, Toulouse, France

Herve Avet-Loiseau, Institute de Biologie, Nantes, France

Ashraf Badros, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md, USA

Leif Bergsagel, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Joan Bladé, Hospital Clinica, Barcelona, Spain

Bart Barlogie, MIRT UAMS Little Rock, AR, USA

Regis Batille, Institute de Biologie, Nantes, France

Meral Beksac, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Andrew Belch, Cross Cancer Institute, Alberta,Canada

Bill Bensinger, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA, USA

Mario Boccadoro, University of Torino, Torino, Italy

Michele Cavo, Universita di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Wen Ming Chen, MM Research Center of Beijing, Beijing, China

Tony Child, Leeds General Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom

James Chim, Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong

Ray Comenzo, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

John Crowley, Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA

William Dalton, H Lee Moffitt, Tampa, FL, USA

Faith Davies, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England

Cármino de Souza, Univeridade de Campinas, Caminas, Brazil

Michel Delforge, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium

Meletios Dimopoulos, Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece

Angela Dispenzieri, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Brian GM Durie, Cedars-Sinai Outpatient Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Hermann Einsele, Universitätsklinik Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

Theirry Facon, Centre Hospitalier Regional Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France

Dorotea Fantl, Socieded Argentinade Hematolgia, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Jean-Paul Fermand, Hopitaux de Paris, Paris, France

Rafael Fonseca, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Gosta Gahrton, Karolinska Institute for Medicine, Huddinge, Sweden

Morie Gertz, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

John Gibson, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Sergio Giralt, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Hartmut Goldschmidt, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Philip Greipp, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Roman Hajek, Brno University, Brno, Czech Republic

Izhar Hardan, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

Jean-Luc Harousseau, Institute de Biologie, Nantes, France

Hiroyuki Hata, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

Yutaka Hattori, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

Joy Ho, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Vania Hungria, Clinica San Germano, Sao Paolo, Brazil

Shinsuke Ida, Nagoya City University Medical School, Nagoya, Japan

Peter Jacobs, Constantiaberg Medi-Clinic, Plumstead, South Africa

Sundar Jagannath, St Vincent's Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

Hou Jian, Shanghai Chang Zheng Hospital, Shanghai, China

Douglas Joshua, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia

Michio Kawano, Yamaguchi University, Ube, Japan

Nicolaus Kröger, University Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Shaji Kumar, Department of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA

Robert Kyle, Department of Laboratory Med and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, MN, USA

Juan Lahuerta, Grupo Espanol di Mieloma, Hospital Universitario, Madrid, Spain

Jae Hoon Lee, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Korea

Xavier LeLeu, Hospital Huriez, CHRU Lille, France

Suzanne Lentzsch, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Henk Lokhorst, University Medical CenterUtrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Sagar Lonial, Emory University Medical School, Atlanta, GA, USA

Heinz Ludwig, Wilhelminenspital Der Stat Wien, Vienna, Austria

Angelo Maiolino, Rua fonte da Saudade, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Maria Mateos, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Jayesh Mehta, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

GianPaolo Merlini, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

Joseph Mikhael, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Philippe Moreau, University Hospital, Nantes, France

Gareth Morgan, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England

Nikhil Munshi, Diane Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Ruben Niesvizky, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

Yana Novis, Hospital SírioLibanês, Bela Vista, Brazil

Amara Nouel, Hospital Rutz y Paez, Bolivar, Venezuela

Robert Orlowski, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Antonio Palumbo, Cathedra Ematologia, Torino, Italy

Santiago Pavlovsky, Fundaleu, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Linda Pilarski, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada

Raymond Powles, Leukaemia & Myeloma, Wimbledon, England

S Vincent Rajkumar, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Donna Reece, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada

Tony Reiman, Cross Cancer Institute, Alberta, Canada

Paul Richardson, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Angelina Rodriquez Morales, Bonco Metro Politano de Sangre, Caracas, Venezuela

Orhan Sezer, Department of Hem/Onc, Universitatsklinikum Charite, Berlin, Germany

John Shaughnessy, MIRT UAMS, Little Rock, AR, USA

Kazuyuki Shimizu, Nagoya City Midori General Hospital, Nagoya, Japan

David Siegel, Hackensack, Cancer Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA

Jesus San Miguel, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

Chaim Shustik, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Seema Singhal, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Pieter Sonneveld, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Andrew Spencer, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

Edward Stadtmauer, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Keith Stewart, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ, USA

Patrizia Tosi, Italian Cooperative Group, Istituto di Ematologia Seragnoli, Bologna, Italy

Guido Tricot, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Ingemar Turesson, Department of Hematology, Malmo University, Malmo, Sweden

Brian Van Ness, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Ivan Van Riet, Brussels Vrija University, Brussels, Belgium

Robert Vescio, Cedars-Sinai Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

David Vesole, Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA

Anders Waage, University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway NSMG

Michael Wang, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA

Donna Weber, MD Anderson, Houston, TX, USA

Jan Westin, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

Keith Wheatley, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Dina B Yehuda, Department of Hematology, Hadassah University Hospital, Hadassah, Israel

Jeffrey Zonder, SWOG, Department of Hem/Onc, Karmanos Cancer Institute, MI, USA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dimopoulos, M., Terpos, E., Comenzo, R. et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia 23, 1545–1556 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2009.89

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/leu.2009.89

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links