Differentiation of Diffuse Infiltration Pattern in Multiple Myeloma From Hyperplastic Hematopoietic Bone Marrow: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis Using Whole-Body MRI

被引:6
作者
Sun, Mengtian [1 ]
Cheng, Jingliang [1 ]
Ren, Cuiping [1 ]
Zhang, Yong [1 ]
Li, Yinhua [1 ]
Wang, Linlin [1 ]
Liu, Yu [2 ]
机构
[1] Zhengzhou Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Magnet Resonance, 1st Jianshe Dong Rd, Zhengzhou 450052, Henan, Peoples R China
[2] Zhengzhou Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Hematol, 1st Jianshe Dong Rd, Zhengzhou 450052, Henan, Peoples R China
关键词
multiple myeloma; hyperplastic hematopoietic bone marrow; diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression; modified Dixon chemical-shift imaging; IMAGING PATTERN; FOCAL LESIONS; COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSIS; FRACTION;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.27934
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background The visual assessment used for diffuse infiltration of multiple myeloma (MM) is inadequate. It can be difficult to differentiate MM from hyperplastic hematopoietic bone marrow (HHBM) because the MRI signal characteristics overlap. Purpose To analyze the bone marrow diffuse signal changes on whole-body MRI caused by MM and HHBM. Study type Retrospective. Subjects Thirty Four patients with MM (21 men and 13 women), 22 patients with HHBM (9 men and 13 women), and 15 healthy controls (9 men and 6 women). Field strength/sequence A 3.0 T MRI; diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS), modified Dixon T1 fast field echo, and T2 STIR. Assessment Three radiologists analyzed the whole-body MRI alone and in combination with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fat fraction (FF) with qualitative and quantitative analysis. Normalized T1 and T2 signal intensities (nT1 and nT2) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were obtained. Statistical tests Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Results The MM group had significantly higher ADC and significantly lower FF than HHBM and control groups. There was no significant difference in nT1, nT2 or SNR between MM and HHBM (P = 0.932, P = 0.097, and P = 0.110, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis using ADC and FF cut-off values of 0.47 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec and 20.63%, respectively. The AUC was 0.866 for ADC and 0.886 for FF. The quantitative analysis yielded better specificity (observer 1: 81.8% vs. 27.3%; observer 2: 68.2% vs. 22.7%; and observer 3: 72.7% vs. 18.2%) and a higher diagnostic accuracy (observer 1: 82.1% vs. 51.8%; observer 2: 80.4% vs. 50.0%; observer 3: 76.8% vs. 44.6%) than the qualitative analysis. Data conclusion Whole-body MRI combined with DWIBS and mDIXON could be used to differentiate between MM and HHBM. Combining the quantitative ADC and FF with the whole-body MRI improved the specificity and accuracy in differentiating these conditions. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2
引用
收藏
页码:1213 / 1225
页数:13
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Whole body MRI: Improved lesion detection and characterization with diffusion weighted techniques [J].
Attariwala, Rajpaul ;
Picker, Wayne .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2013, 38 (02) :253-268
[2]   Magnetic resonance imaging as a supplement for the clinical staging system of Durie and Salmon? [J].
Baur, A ;
Stäbler, A ;
Nagel, D ;
Lamerz, R ;
Bartl, R ;
Hiller, E ;
Wendtner, C ;
Bachner, F ;
Reiser, M .
CANCER, 2002, 95 (06) :1334-1345
[3]   Focal nodular hyperplasia of the hematopoietic marrow simulating vertebral metastasis on FDG positron emission tomography [J].
Bordalo-Rodrigues, M ;
Galant, C ;
Lonneux, M ;
Clause, D ;
Vande Berg, BC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 180 (03) :669-671
[4]   Fat fraction mapping using magnetic resonance imaging: insight into pathophysiology [J].
Bray, Timothy J. P. ;
Chouhan, Manil D. ;
Punwani, Shonit ;
Bainbridge, Alan ;
Hall-Craggs, Margaret A. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2018, 91 (1089)
[5]   Biological properties of bone marrow plasma cells influence their recovery in aspirate specimens: impact on classification of plasma cell disorders and potential bias to evaluation of treatment response [J].
Demyanets, Svitlana ;
Kaider, Alexandra ;
Simonitsch-Klupp, Ingrid ;
Bayer, Guenther ;
Subasic, Almira ;
Thalhammer, Renate ;
Esterbauer, Harald ;
Krauth, Maria T. ;
Agis, Hermine ;
Reiter, Thomas ;
Schwarzinger, Ilse .
ANNALS OF HEMATOLOGY, 2020, 99 (11) :2599-2609
[6]   Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Management of Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Consensus Statement [J].
Dimopoulos, Meletios A. ;
Hillengass, Jens ;
Usmani, Saad ;
Zamagni, Elena ;
Lentzsch, Suzanne ;
Davies, Faith E. ;
Raje, Noopur ;
Sezer, Orhan ;
Zweegman, Sonja ;
Shah, Jatin ;
Badros, Ashraf ;
Shimizu, Kazuyuki ;
Moreau, Philippe ;
Chim, Chor-Sang ;
Lahuerta, Juan Jose ;
Hou, Jian ;
Jurczyszyn, Artur ;
Goldschmidt, Hartmut ;
Sonneveld, Pieter ;
Palumbo, Antonio ;
Ludwig, Heinz ;
Cavo, Michele ;
Barlogie, Bart ;
Anderson, Kenneth ;
Roodman, G. David ;
Rajkumar, S. Vincent ;
Durie, Brian G. M. ;
Terpos, Evangelos .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (06) :657-U186
[7]  
Durie Brian G M, 2003, Hematol J, V4, P379
[8]   MRI in multiple myeloma: a pictorial review of diagnostic and post-treatment findings [J].
Dutoit J.C. ;
Verstraete K.L. .
Insights into Imaging, 2016, 7 (4) :553-569
[9]   Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Assessment of Treatment Response in Myeloma [J].
Giles, Sharon L. ;
Messiou, Christina ;
Collins, David J. ;
Morgan, Veronica A. ;
Simpkin, Catherine J. ;
West, Sharon ;
Davies, Faith E. ;
Morgan, Gareth J. ;
deSouza, Nandita M. .
RADIOLOGY, 2014, 271 (03) :785-794
[10]   Current Concepts in the Evaluation of Multiple Myeloma with MR Imaging and FDG PET/CT [J].
Hanrahan, Christopher J. ;
Christensen, Carl R. ;
Crim, Julia R. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2010, 30 (01) :127-U153