Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Critical Role of Imaging in the Management of Multiple Myeloma

  • Multiple Myeloma (P Kapoor, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by abnormal proliferation of plasma cells in the bone marrow leading to symptoms of anemia, renal failure, hypercalcemia, and bone lesions. Bone imaging is critical for the diagnosis, staging, assessment for the presence and extent of bone lesions, and initial treatment of MM. Skeletal survey is the preferred initial imaging modality due to its availability and low cost. However, it has poor sensitivity and patients with occult myeloma may escape detection, delaying their diagnosis and treatment. New cross-sectional imaging modalities such as low-dose whole body CT, MRI, and PET-CT have high sensitivity and specificity for detecting lytic lesions and extramedullary relapse in MM. The combined use of cross-sectional imaging may provide complimentary information for staging, prognosis, and disease monitoring. In this review, we will discuss commonly used imaging modalities and their advantages and disadvantages in the management of MM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. The Lancet Oncology. 2014;15(12):e538–48. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5. This article discusses comprehensive diagnostic criteria for MM.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International myeloma working group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. The Lancet Oncology. 2016;17(8):e328–46. doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30206-6. This article discusses role of minimal residual disease in MM.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Angtuaco EJ, Fassas AB, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: clinical review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology. 2004;231(1):11–23. doi:10.1148/radiol.2311020452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Derlin T, Bannas P. Imaging of multiple myeloma: current concepts. World journal of orthopedics. 2014;5(3):272–82. doi:10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. • Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990). 2006;42(11):1539–43. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2005.11.037. This article provides use of staging criteria and incorporation of cross-sectional imaging in MM.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zamagni E, Cavo M. The role of imaging techniques in the management of multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2012;159(5):499–513. doi:10.1111/bjh.12007.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL, Shaughnessy Jr JD, van Rhee F, Anaissie E, et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2009;114(10):2068–76. doi:10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, Kamphuis MH, Raijmakers PG, Pieters-van den Bos IC et al. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Br J Haematol 2013;162(1):50–61. doi:10.1111/bjh.12346.

  9. Hameed A, Brady JJ, Dowling P, Clynes M, O’Gorman P. Bone disease in multiple myeloma: pathophysiology and management. Cancer growth and metastasis. 2014;7:33–42. doi:10.4137/cgm.s16817.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Galson DL, Silbermann R, Roodman GD. Mechanisms of multiple myeloma bone disease. BoneKEy reports. 2012;1:135. doi:10.1038/bonekey.2012.135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Giuliani N, Rizzoli V, Roodman GD. Multiple myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology of osteoblast inhibition. Blood. 2006;108(13):3992–6. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-05-026112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Oranger A, Carbone C, Izzo M, Grano M. Cellular mechanisms of multiple myeloma bone disease. Clinical & developmental immunology. 2013;2013:289458. doi:10.1155/2013/289458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Silvestris F, Cafforio P, Calvani N, Dammacco F. Impaired osteoblastogenesis in myeloma bone disease: role of upregulated apoptosis by cytokines and malignant plasma cells. Br J Haematol. 2004;126(4):475–86. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05084.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hjorth-Hansen H, Seifert MF, Borset M, Aarset H, Ostlie A, Sundan A, et al. Marked osteoblastopenia and reduced bone formation in a model of multiple myeloma bone disease in severe combined immunodeficiency mice. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res. 1999;14(2):256–63. doi:10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.2.256.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Roodman GD. Pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease. Leukemia. 2009;23(3):435–41. doi:10.1038/leu.2008.336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Szubert AJ, Bell SE, Drayson MT, et al. Effects of induction and maintenance plus long-term bisphosphonates on bone disease in patients with multiple myeloma: the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Trial. Blood. 2012;119(23):5374–83. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-11-392522.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Usmani SZ, Heuck C, Mitchell A, Szymonifka J, Nair B, Hoering A, et al. Extramedullary disease portends poor prognosis in multiple myeloma and is over-represented in high-risk disease even in the era of novel agents. Haematologica. 2012;97(11):1761–7. doi:10.3324/haematol.2012.065698.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Short KD, Rajkumar SV, Larson D, Buadi F, Hayman S, Dispenzieri A, et al. Incidence of extramedullary disease in patients with multiple myeloma in the era of novel therapy, and the activity of pomalidomide on extramedullary myeloma. Leukemia. 2011;25(6):906–8. doi:10.1038/leu.2011.29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Varettoni M, Corso A, Pica G, Mangiacavalli S, Pascutto C, Lazzarino M. Incidence, presenting features and outcome of extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma: a longitudinal study on 1003 consecutive patients. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO. 2010;21(2):325–30. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp329.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mulligan ME. Skeletal abnormalities in multiple myeloma. Radiology. 2005;234(1):313–4. author reply 4 doi:10.1148/radiol.2341040731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenspan A. Malignant bone tumors II. Orthopedic radiology: a practical approach. 3rd ed.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 697–700.

  22. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, Tosi P, Beksac M, Sezer O, 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. 2009;23(9):1545–56. doi:10.1038/leu.2009.89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marti-Bonmati L, Ramirez-Fuentes C, Alberich-Bayarri A, Ruiz-Llorca C. State-of-the-art of bone marrow imaging in multiple myeloma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2015;27(6):540–50. doi:10.1097/cco.0000000000000230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Maldague BE. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography imaging in multiple myeloma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2001;5(1):43–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(6):1429–36. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781429.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(2):289–97. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP, Gleeson JP, Fitzpatrick P, Byrne B, et al. Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI). Skelet Radiol. 2009;38(3):225–36. doi:10.1007/s00256-008-0607-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pianko MJ, Terpos E, Roodman GD, Divgi CR, Zweegman S, Hillengass J, et al. Whole-body low-dose computed tomography and advanced imaging techniques for multiple myeloma bone disease. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2014;20(23):5888–97. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-1692.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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(4):1097–104. doi:10.2214/ajr.07.2635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vogler 3rd JB, Murphy WA. Bone marrow imaging. Radiology. 1988;168(3):679–93. doi:10.1148/radiology.168.3.3043546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Healy CF, Murray JG, Eustace SJ, Madewell J, O'Gorman PJ, O'Sullivan P. Multiple myeloma: a review of imaging features and radiological techniques. Bone marrow research. 2011;2011:583439. doi:10.1155/2011/583439.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, Fermand JP, Rajkumar SV, San Miguel J, Chanan-Khan A, et al. Consensus recommendations for standard investigative workup: report of the international myeloma workshop consensus panel 3. Blood. 2011;117(18):4701–5. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-10-299529.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2007;25(9):1121–8. doi:10.1200/jco.2006.08.5803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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(4):1029–36. doi:10.2214/ajr.167.4.8819407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dutoit JC, Verstraete KL. MRI in multiple myeloma: a pictorial review of diagnostic and post-treatment findings. Insights into Imaging. 2016;7(4):553–69. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0492-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, Muller S, Messer P, Bunjes D, et al. Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29(3):361–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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(4):1199–204. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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 (Athens, Greece). 2008;22(4):513–7.

  39. Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A, Racanelli V. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT: a review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med. 2015;15(1):1–18. doi:10.1007/s10238-014-0308-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mulligan M, Chirindel A, Karchevsky M. Characterizing and predicting pathologic spine fractures in myeloma patients with FDG PET/CT and MR imaging. Cancer Investig. 2011;29(5):370–6. doi:10.3109/07357907.2011.584589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, Zannetti B, Englaro E, Pezzi A, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood. 2011;118(23):5989–95. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, Crowley J, Hoering A, Petty N, et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3. Blood. 2013;121(10):1819–23. doi:10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Celli M, Caroli P, Ambrosini V, Tacchetti P, 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. 2013;38(2):e74–9. doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e318266cee2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ghimire K, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Buadi FK, et al. Incidence and survival outcomes of extramedullary myeloma. Blood. 2013;122(21):3141.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nakamoto Y, Kurihara K, Nishizawa M, Yamashita K, Nakatani K, Kondo T, et al. Clinical value of (1)(1)C-methionine PET/CT in patients with plasma cell malignancy: comparison with (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(5):708–15. doi:10.1007/s00259-012-2333-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. de Waal EG, Glaudemans AW, Schroder CP, Vellenga E, Slart RH. Nuclear medicine imaging of multiple myeloma, particularly in the relapsed setting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(2):332–41. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3576-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cassou-Mounat T, Balogova S, Nataf V, Calzada M, Huchet V, Kerrou K, et al. 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(11):1995–2004. doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3392-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wall JS, Kennel SJ, Stuckey AC, Long MJ, Townsend DW, Smith GT, et al. Radioimmunodetection of amyloid deposits in patients with AL amyloidosis. Blood. 2010;116(13):2241–4. doi:10.1182/blood-2010-03-273797.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Sachpekidis C, Hillengass J, Goldschmidt H, Mosebach J, Pan L, Schlemmer H-P, et al. Comparison of (18)F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI in patients with multiple myeloma. American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2015;5(5):469–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Columbia University Medical Center, Herbert Irving Pavilion, 161 Fort Washington Ave, New York, NY, 10032, USA

    Shahzad Raza, Siyang Leng & Suzanne Lentzsch

Authors
  1. Shahzad Raza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siyang Leng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzanne Lentzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahzad Raza.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shahzad Raza and Siyang Lang each declare no potential conflict of interest.

Suzanne Lentzsch participated in advisory boards of BMS, Celgene, Janssen, and Novartis, and report grants and honoraria from Celgene.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Multiple Myeloma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raza, S., Leng, S. & Lentzsch, S. The Critical Role of Imaging in the Management of Multiple Myeloma. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 12, 168–175 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-017-0379-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11899-017-0379-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation