The Issue of Interpretation

  • Cristina NanniEmail author

Abstract and Aims

FDG PET/CT is recommended by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) as the actual “gold standard” method for evaluating and monitoring response to therapy as it provides useful indexes to further stratify patients with different treatment outcome. However, Multiple Myeloma is a complex disease to interpret on imaging as it may present with diffuse bone marrow infiltration, focal lesions, extramedullary lesions, fractures and paramedullary disease.

This chapter aims to:
  • Explain the possible pitfalls in FDG PET/CT imaging

  • Provide and explanation of IMPETUS criteria

  • Provide an example of IMPETUS criteria application (to be integrated with clinical cases)


Multiple myeloma FDG PET/CT Functional imaging 


  1. 1.
    Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, Moreau P, Lentzsch S, Zweegman S, 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. 2017;18(4):e206–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TLY, Shaughnessy JDJ, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falcone C, Cipullo S, Sannino P, Restuccia A. Whole body magnetic resonance and CT/PET in patients affected by multiple myeloma during staging before treatment. Recenti Prog Med. 2012;103(11):444–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Derlin T, Peldschus K, Munster S, Bannas P, Herrmann J, Stubig T, et al. Comparative diagnostic performance of (1)(8)F-FDGPET/CT versus whole-body MRI for determination of remission status in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(2):570–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fonti R, Larobina M, Del Vecchio S, De Luca S, Fabbricini R, Catalano L, et al. Metabolic tumor volume assessed by 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of outcome in patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(12):1829–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, Chari A, Jagannath S, Kostakoglu L. State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(12):2203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, Chauvie S, Bianchi A, Rensi M, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(3):414–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barrington SF, Mikhaeel NG. When should FDG-PET be used in the modern management of lymphoma? Br J Haematol. 2014;164(3):315–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(5):683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallamini A, Barrington SF, Biggi A, Chauvie S, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale. Haematologica. 2014;99(6):1107–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine, AOU S.Orsola-MalpighiBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations