Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative bone marrow magnetic resonance imaging through apparent diffusion coefficient and fat fraction in multiple myeloma patients

  • Musculoskeletal Radiology
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Quantitative bone marrow (BM) MR sequences, as DWI and CSI, were used to evaluate BM water–fat composition. The aim of the study was to assess the potential usefulness of fat fraction (FF) and ADC, calculated by CSI or DWI, in diagnosing and classifying myeloma (MM) patients according to their different BM infiltration patterns.

Methods

The study group included 43 MM patients (19F; 24M; mean age 64 years), 15 asymptomatic, 15 symptomatic with diffuse BM infiltration and 13 symptomatic with focal lesions (FLs). The control group was made up of 15 healthy subjects (7F; 8M; mean age 64 years). MRI examinations consisted of sagittal T1w TSE on the spinal column, axial DWI (b 50–400–800 mm2/s) and coronal T2 Dixon, on the whole body. Mean ADC and FF were calculated placing 1 ROI on 6 vertebras and 2 ROIs on either the pelvis or FL.

Results

ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction showed a significant difference in ADC values among the different groups of MM patients (P < 0.05), while FF was only significantly different between patients with diffuse infiltration and patients with FL (P = 0.002). ADC allowed distinguishing MM patients from normal BM patients with diffuse BM infiltration (cutoff value: 0.491 × 10−3 mm2/s; sensitivity 73%, specificity 80%). FF helped better discriminate healthy controls from normal BM patients (cutoff = 0.33, sensitivity 73%, specificity 92%) and patients with diffuse BM infiltration from those with FL (cutoff = 0.16, sensitivity 82%, specificity 92%).

Conclusion

ADC and FF are potentially useful parameter for the quantitative evaluation of BM infiltration in MM patients.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A (2014) International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 15:538–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Landgren O (2017) Shall we treat smoldering multiple myeloma in the near future? Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 1:194–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Koutoulidis V, Papanikolaou N, Moulopoulos LA (2018) Functional and molecular MRI of the bone marrow in multiple myeloma. Br J Radiol 91(1088):20170389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Messiou C, Hillengass J, Delorme S et al (2019) Guidelines for acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of whole-body MRI in myeloma: myeloma response assessment and diagnosis system (MY-RADS). Radiology 291(1):5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL et al (2009) 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Dürr HR, Reiser M (2005) Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 55(1):56–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Christoulas D et al (2010) Diffuse MRI marrow pattern correlates with increased angiogenesis, advanced disease features and poor prognosis in newly diagnosed myeloma treated with novel agents. Leukemia 24(6):1206–1212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(9):861–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(6):818–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Taylor SA, Carucci LR (2018) The role of imaging in obesity special feature. Br J Radiol 91(1089):20189002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dixon WT (1984) Simple proton imaging. Radiology 153:189–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Karampinos DC, Ruschke S, Dieckmeyer M et al (2018) Quantitative MRI and spectroscopy of bone marrow. J Magn Reson Imaging 47(2):332–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee SY, Kim HJ, Shin YR, Park HJ, Lee YG, Oh SJ (2017) Prognostic significance of focal lesions and diffuse infiltration on MRI for multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 27(6):2333–2347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Messiou C, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Desouza NM (2011) Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol 21(8):1713–1718

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Koutoulidis V, Fontara S, Terpos E et al (2017) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the bone marrow: an adjunct tool for the diagnosis of a diffuse MR imaging pattern in patients with multiple myeloma. Radiology 282(2):484–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pozzi G, Albano D, Messina C et al (2018) Solid bone tumors of the spine: diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion-weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard. J Magn Reson Imaging 47(4):1034–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoo HJ, Hong SH, Kim DH (2016) Measurement of fat content in vertebral marrow using a modified dixon sequence to differentiate benign from malignant processes. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(5):1534–1544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Danner A, Brumpt E, Alilet M, Tio G, Omoumi P, Aubry S (2019) Improved contrast for myeloma focal lesions with T2-weighted Dixon images compared to T1-weighted images. Diagn Interv Imaging 100(9):513–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Takasu M, Tani C, Sakoda Y (2012) Iterative decomposition of water and fat with echo asymmetry and least-squares estimation (IDEAL) imaging of multiple myeloma: initial clinical efficiency results. Eur Radiol 22:1114–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Latifoltojar A, Hall-Craggs M, Rabin N, Popat R, Bainbridge A, Dikaios N, Sokolska M, Rismani A, D'Sa S, Punwani S, Yong K (2017) Whole body magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: early changes in lesional signal fat fraction predict disease response. Br J Haematol 176(2):222–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors of this paper have no financial or personal relationship with people or association which could influence the content of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy

    Sara Berardo, Lidiia Sukhovei, Alessandro Carriero & Alessandro Stecco

  2. Department of Biomedical Statistics, AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy

    Silvano Andorno

Authors
  1. Sara Berardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lidiia Sukhovei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvano Andorno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Carriero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandro Stecco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SB: radiology resident; data collection and drafting of the article. LS: radiology resident; data collection and drafting of the article. SA: performed all statistical analyses. AC: radiologist, Professor of Piemonte Orientale University; Proofreader of the article. AS: radiologist, Professor of Piemonte Orientale University; Proofreader of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Berardo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Italian ethical guidelines for retrospective studies and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berardo, S., Sukhovei, L., Andorno, S. et al. Quantitative bone marrow magnetic resonance imaging through apparent diffusion coefficient and fat fraction in multiple myeloma patients. Radiol med 126, 445–452 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01258-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01258-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation