Simultaneous MRI and 18F-FDG-PET Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: A Model for Evaluation of the Disease and Therapeutic Changes in SCID-hu Mice

Part of the Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine book series (STEMCELL)


Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable plasma cell malignancy in which abnormal plasma cells accumulate in the bone marrow manifesting as osteolytic lesions in approximately 80% of the patients. Since bone disease is a hallmark of MM, sensitive imaging techniques directed at the detection of early bone lesions may be predictive of MM progression. Even though the current guideline for assessment of MM involves traditional skeletal survey, its limitations are well documented. However, several techniques have evolved in the preclinical cancer drug discovery including molecular and non-invasive imaging techniques, such as, low dose CT, molecularly targeted PET, MRI, single positron emission computed tomography, ultrasound and approaches like bioluminescence and fluorescence imaging. These techniques hold great promise in early diagnosis and monitoring of the disease and each has its share of advantages and disadvantages. An ideal technique should not alter the subject, should allow repeated measurements during the time course of the disease, should be sensitive enough to detect early disease and should have reasonably high specificity. However such technique is difficult to devise and test directly in human subjects due to technical challenges and ethical considerations and most of the pre-clinical research is done on the small animals.

This chapter will review some of the available molecular and conventional imaging techniques in multiple myeloma with emphasis on the combined use of MRI and FDG-PET scanning in murine model that can accurately monitor the extent and severity of MM, in real time both at molecular and cellular level. In the experience of the authors combining MRI and FDG-PET improves accuracy in screening and therapy related changes in myeloma. This approach can provide strategies that translate into the clinical paradigm and help to understand the biology of myeloma.


Molecular imaging MRI PET Radiography ELISA Myeloma SCID-hu 



18F–Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography


Autologous stem cell transplantation


Bioluminescence imaging


Chimeric antigen receptor-T


Computed tomography


Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI


Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay


Expanded natural killer


Human immunoglobulins


Invariant natural killer T cells


Magnetic resonance imaging


Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance


Multiple myeloma


Non-obese diabetic-SCID-IL2 receptor gamma null-human


Positron emission tomography


Severe-combined immunodeficiency



This work was funded by Medical Research Endowment Fund, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. We acknowledge support from Dr. M.J. Borrelli and technical assistance from A. Terri. We would like to thank A. Greenway and J.K. Khan for animal handling support.


  1. 1.
    Yaccoby S, Barlogie B, Epstein J. Primary myeloma cells growing in SCID-hu mice: a model for studying the biology and treatment of myeloma and its manifestations. Blood. 1998;92:2908–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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;15:1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Genadieva-Stavric S, Cavallo F, Palumbo A. New approaches to management of multiple myeloma. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2014;15:157–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Frits R, Giralt S, Barlogie B. The future of autologous stem cell transplantation in myeloma. Blood. 2014;124:328–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ayed AO, Chang LJ, Moreb JS. Immunotherapy for multiple myeloma: current status and future directions. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2015;96:399–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rotolo A, Caputo V, Karadimitris A. The prospects and promise of chimeric antigen receptor immunotherapy in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2016;173:350–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;190:1097–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lutje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA. Role of radiography, MRI and FDG-PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol. 2009;88:1161–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Jong M, Maina T. Of mice and humans: are they the same?--Implications in cancer translational research. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:501–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liao CP, Zhong C, Saribekyan G, Bading J, Park R, Conti PS, et al. Mouse models of prostate adenocarcinoma with the capacity to monitor spontaneous carcinogenesis by bioluminescence or fluorescence. Cancer Res. 2007;67:7525–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suggitt M, Bibby MC. 50 years of preclinical anticancer drug screening: empirical to target-driven approaches. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:971–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang GJ, Chen TB, Bednar B, Connolly BM, Hargreaves R, Sur C, et al. Optical imaging of tumor cells in hollow fibers: evaluation of the antitumor activities of anticancer drugs and target validation. Neoplasia. 2007;9:652–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cai W, Rao J, Gambhir SS, Chen X. How molecular imaging is speeding up antiangiogenic drug development. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5:2624–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanchez E, Chen H, Berenson JR. In vivo models of multiple myeloma (MM). Biochem Pharmacol. 2014;89:313–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shultz LD, Ishikawa F, Greiner DL. Humanized mice in translational biomedical research. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:118–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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;36:842–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garg TK, Szmania SM, Khan JA, Hoering A, Malbrough PA, Moreno-Bost A, et al. Highly activated and expanded natural killer cells for multiple myeloma immunotherapy. Haematologica. 2012;97:1348–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gould SJ, Subramani S. Firefly luciferase as a tool in molecular and cell biology. Anal Biochem. 1988;175:5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moriyama EH, Niedre MJ, Jarvi MT, Mocanu JD, Moriyama Y, Subarsky P, et al. The influence of hypoxia on bioluminescence in luciferase-transfected gliosarcoma tumor cells in vitro. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2008;7:675–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiffen JC, Bailey CG, Ng C, Rasko JE, Holst J. Luciferase expression and bioluminescence does not affect tumor cell growth in vitro or in vivo. Mol Cancer. 2010;9:299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Troy T, Jekic-McMullen D, Sambucetti L, Rice B. Quantitative comparison of the sensitivity of detection of fluorescent and bioluminescent reporters in animal models. Mol Imaging. 2004;3:9–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O'Farrell AC, Shnyder SD, Marston G, Coletta PL, Gill JH. Non-invasive molecular imaging for preclinical cancer therapeutic development. Br J Pharmacol. 2013;169:719–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickson PV, Hamner B, Ng CY, Hall MM, Zhou J, Hargrove PW, et al. In vivo bioluminescence imaging for early detection and monitoring of disease progression in a murine model of neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42:1172–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jurczok A, Fornara P, Soling A. Bioluminescence imaging to monitor bladder cancer cell adhesion in vivo: a new approach to optimize a syngeneic, orthotopic, murine bladder cancer model. BJU Int. 2008;101:120–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nogawa M, Yuasa T, Kimura S, Kuroda J, Sato K, Segawa H, et al. Monitoring luciferase-labeled cancer cell growth and metastasis in different in vivo models. Cancer Lett. 2005;217:243–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fomchenko EI, Holland EC. Mouse models of brain tumors and their applications in preclinical trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5288–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2006;57:99–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hasegawa S, Furukawa T, Saga T. Molecular MR imaging of cancer gene therapy: ferritin transgene reporter takes the stage. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2010;9:37–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kassouf W, Brown GA, Shetty A, Hazle JD, Stafford RJ, Rosser CJ, et al. An in vivo orthotopic canine model to evaluate distribution of intraprostatic injectate: implications for gene therapy and drug delivery for prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;70:822–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Breton E, Goetz C, Kintz J, Accart N, Aubertin G, Grellier B, et al. In vivo preclinical low-field MRI monitoring of tumor growth following a suicide-gene therapy in an orthotopic mice model of human glioblastoma. C R Biol. 2010;333:220–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Durie BG. The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1539–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lyons SK. Advances in imaging mouse tumour models in vivo. J Pathol. 2005;205:194–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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;33:525–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grange C, Geninatti-Crich S, Esposito G, Alberti D, Tei L, Bussolati B, et al. Combined delivery and magnetic resonance imaging of neural cell adhesion molecule-targeted doxorubicin-containing liposomes in experimentally induced Kaposi’s sarcoma. Cancer Res. 2010;70:2180–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strijkers GJ, Kluza E, Van Tilborg GA, van der Schaft DW, Griffioen AW, Mulder WJ, et al. Paramagnetic and fluorescent liposomes for target-specific imaging and therapy of tumor angiogenesis. Angiogenesis. 2010;13:161–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zaidi H, Prasad R. Advances in multimodality molecular imaging. J Med Phys. 2009;34:122–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vansteenkiste JF. Imaging in lung cancer: positron emission tomography scan. Eur Respir J Suppl. 2002;35:49s–60s.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Otsuka H, Morita N, Yamashita K, Nishitani H. FDG-PET/CT for cancer management. J Med Invest. 2007;54:195–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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;184:1199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zamagni E, Cavo M. The role of imaging techniques in the management of multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2012;159:499–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Avril N, Propper D. Functional PET imaging in cancer drug development. Future Oncol. 2007;3:215–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Laforest R, Liu X. Image quality with non-standard nuclides in PET. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;52:151–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cejka D, Kuntner C, Preusser M, Fritzer-Szekeres M, Fueger BJ, Strommer S, et al. FDG uptake is a surrogate marker for defining the optimal biological dose of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in vivo. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:1739–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chen W, Delaloye S, Silverman DH, Geist C, Czernin J, Sayre J, et al. Predicting treatment response of malignant gliomas to bevacizumab and irinotecan by imaging proliferation with [18F] fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: a pilot study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4714–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Diaz R, Nguewa PA, Parrondo R, Perez-Stable C, Manrique I, Redrado M, et al. Antitumor and antiangiogenic effect of the dual EGFR and HER-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib in a lung cancer model. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kim TJ, Ravoori M, Landen CN, Kamat AA, Han LY, Lu C, et al. Antitumor and antivascular effects of AVE8062 in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2007;67:9337–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leyton J, Alao JP, Da CM, Stavropoulou AV, Latigo JR, Perumal M, et al. In vivo biological activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitor LAQ824 is detectable with 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography. Cancer Res. 2006;66:7621–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pollok KE, Lahn M, Enas N, McNulty A, Graff J, Cai S, et al. In vivo measurements of tumor metabolism and growth after administration of enzastaurin using small animal FDG positron emission tomography. J Oncol. 2009;2009:596560.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:122–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Myeloma InstituteUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS)Little RockUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA

Personalised recommendations