Skip to main content
Log in

Fokale Läsionen in der Ganzkörper-MRT beim multiplen Myelom

Quantifizierung der Tumorlast und Korrelation mit krankheitstypischen Parametern und Prognose

Focal lesions in whole-body MRI in multiple myeloma

Quantification of tumor mass and correlation with disease-related parameters and prognosis

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Fragestellung

In dieser Studie wurden Methoden der Tumorlastquantifizierung in der Ganzkörper-Magnetresonanztomographie (GK-MRT) beim Multiplen Myelom untersucht und mit krankheitstypischen Parametern in Serum und Knochenmark korreliert.

Material und Methoden

Die GK-MRT von 52 Patienten mit fokalem Befallsmuster wurden retrospektiv ausgewertet. 700 fokale Läsionen (im Folgenden Läsionen genannt) wurden in kugelig und nicht-kugelig eingeteilt, manuell segmentiert und der längste Durchmesser (LD) bestimmt. Gesamtanzahl und -volumen der Läsionen wurden mit klinischen Parametern und Prognose sowie der LD mit dem segmentierten Volumen (SV) der Läsionen korreliert. SV und per Kugelformel anhand dem LD berechnetes Volumen (BV) wurden auf Übereinstimmung analysiert.

Ergebnisse

Es zeigten sich keine signifikanten Korrelationen von Gesamtanzahl/-volumen der Läsionen mit den überwiegend normwertigen Parametern oder der Prognose. 10 % der Läsionen waren kugelig. SV und LD korrelierten signifikant für die einzelnen Läsionen und auf Patientenebene. Das SV war bei Läsionen <6 cm3 systematisch größer, bei Läsionen ≥6 cm3 kleiner als das BV. Zu 95 % zeigten kleine Läsionen Abweichungen des BV von +0,9 bis −4,6 cm3 und große Läsionen von +160 bis −111 cm3 gegenüber dem SV (BV-SV).

Diskussion

Bei überwiegend nicht-kugeligen Läsionen wird die Tumorlast bei fokalem Befallsmuster akkurater durch die Volumetrie als durch die Bestimmung des LD quantifiziert. Die Patientenkohorte ist mit überwiegend normwertigen klinischen Parametern in Richtung Stadium I des „International Staging System“ verteilt und teilweise vorbehandelt, was die Interpretation fehlender Korrelationen erschwert. Auch sind eine unterschiedliche Aktivität der Läsionen und ein MR-morphologisch nicht fassbarer diffuser Befall zu überlegen.

Abstract

Background and objectives

In this study, we evaluated methods of quantification of tumor mass in whole-body MRI (wb-MRI) in multiple myeloma and correlated these with disease-related parameters in serum and bone marrow.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively evaluated wb-MRIs of 52 patients with focal infiltration pattern and a total of 700 focal lesions (subsequently called lesions). We determined the longest diameter (LD), the segmented volume (SV), and the morphology (spherical or non-spherical). We correlated total number/volume of the lesions with clinical parameters and prognosis and furthermore LD with SV. After that we analyzed the agreement of SV and estimated volume (EV) using the volume formula of a sphere based on LD.

Results

Results showed no significant correlations of total number/volume with prognosis or clinical parameters. The latter were situated predominantly in the normal range. Furthermore, 10% of lesions were spherical. SV and LD correlated significantly in single lesions and on patient level. SV was in lesions <6 cm3 systematically larger and in lesions ≥6 cm3 smaller than EV. In 95%, we found in small lesions a deviation of EV versus SV from +0.9 cm3 to −4.6 cm3 and in large lesions from +160 cm3 to −111 cm3 (EV-SV).

Conclusions

Quantification of tumor mass in the focal infiltration pattern is performed more accurately by volumetry than LD due to the predominant existence of non-spherical lesions. The patient cohort with clinical parameters predominantly in the normal range is distributed to ISS stage I and partly pretreated, a fact that makes interpretation of absent correlations more difficult. Consider also a variation in activitiy of lesions and a diffuse infiltration not detectable by MRI.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Ailawadhi S, Abdelhalim AN, Derby L et al (2010) Extent of disease burden determined with magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow is predictive of survival outcome in patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 116:84–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alderliesten T, Schlief A, Peterse J et al (2007) Validation of semiautomatic measurement of the extent of breast tumors using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 42:42–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Moreau P et al (2007) Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. Blood 109:3489–3495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TL et al (2009) F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 114:2068–2076

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Baur A, Stabler A, Nagel D et al (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? Cancer 95:1334–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlson K, Astrom G, Nyman R et al (1995) MR imaging of multiple myeloma in tumour mass measurement at diagnosis and during treatment. Acta Radiol 36:9–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C et al (2017) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dhodapkar MV, Sexton R, Waheed S et al (2014) Clinical, genomic, and imaging predictors of myeloma progression from asymptomatic monoclonal gammopathies (SWOG S0120). Blood 123:78–85

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG et al (2005) International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 23:3412–3420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hillengass J, Ayyaz S, Kilk K et al (2012) Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 97:1757–1760

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber MA et al (2010) Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 28:1606–1610

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kastritis E, Moulopoulos LA, Terpos E et al (2014) The prognostic importance of the presence of more than one focal lesion in spine MRI of patients with asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Leukemia 28:2402–2403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kloth JK, Hillengass J, Listl K et al (2014) Appearance of monoclonal plasma cell diseases in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and correlation with parameters of disease activity. Int J Cancer 135:2380–2386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar S, Fonseca R, Ketterling RP et al (2012) Trisomies in multiple myeloma: impact on survival in patients with high-risk cytogenetics. Blood 119:2100–2105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE et al (2003) Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 78:21–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu N, Zhou H, Yang G et al (2015) Retrospective analysis of genetic abnormalities and survival in 131 patients with multiple myeloma. Oncol Lett 9:930–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lohr JG, Stojanov P, Carter SL et al (2014) Widespread genetic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma: implications for targeted therapy. Cancer Cell 25:91–101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mai EK, Hielscher T, Kloth JK et al (2015) A magnetic resonance imaging-based prognostic scoring system to predict outcome in transplant-eligible patients with multiple myeloma. Haematologica 100:818–825

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E et al (2012) Diffuse pattern of bone marrow involvement on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with high risk cytogenetics and poor outcome in newly diagnosed, symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma: a single center experience on 228 patients. Am J Hematol 87:861–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Neben K, Jauch A, Hielscher T et al (2013) Progression in smoldering myeloma is independently determined by the chromosomal abnormalities del(17p), t(4;14), gain 1q, hyperdiploidy, and tumor load. J Clin Oncol 31:4325–4332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nishino M, Jackman DM, Dipiro PJ et al (2014) Revisiting the relationship between tumour volume and diameter in advanced NSCLC patients: An exercise to maximize the utility of each measure to assess response to therapy. Clin Radiol 69:841–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y et al (2005) MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1774–1781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A et al (2014) International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:e538–e548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rajkumar SV, Gupta V, Fonseca R et al (2013) Impact of primary molecular cytogenetic abnormalities and risk of progression in smoldering multiple myeloma. Leukemia 27:1738–1744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah GD, Kesari S, Xu R et al (2006) Comparison of linear and volumetric criteria in assessing tumor response in adult high-grade gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 8:38–46

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shortt CP, Gleeson TG, Breen KA et al (2009) Whole-Body MRI versus PET in assessment of multiple myeloma disease activity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:980–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Spinnato P, Bazzocchi A, Brioli A et al (2012) Contrast enhanced MRI and (1)(8)F-FDG PET-CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: a comparison of results in different phases of the disease. Eur J Radiol 81:4013–4018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R et al (1996) 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 167:1029–1036

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tirumani SH, Shinagare AB, O’neill AC et al (2016) Accuracy and feasibility of estimated tumour volumetry in primary gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours: validation using semiautomated technique in 127 patients. Eur Radiol 26:286–295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 25:1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 92:50–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. C. Brandelik.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

S.C. Brandelik, J. Krzykalla, T. Hielscher, J. Hillengass, J.K. Kloth, H.U. Kauczor und M.A. Weber geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Die Auswertungen in diesem Beitrag erfolgten retrospektiv und wurden mit Zustimmung der Ethikkommission der Medizinischen Fakultät Heidelberg durchgeführt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brandelik, S.C., Krzykalla, J., Hielscher, T. et al. Fokale Läsionen in der Ganzkörper-MRT beim multiplen Myelom. Radiologe 58, 72–78 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0299-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-017-0299-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation