Combined evaluation of conventional MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging for response evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Issue 2 (February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dutoit, Julie C.; Claus, Eveline; Offner, Fritz; Noens, Lucien; Delanghe, Joris; Verstraete, Koenraad L.
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Volume 85:Issue 2(2016)
• Page Start: 373
• Page End: 382
• Publication Date: 2016-02
• Subjects: A active -- AbsEmax absolute maximal enhancement -- ADC apparent diffusion coefficient -- CR complete response -- CT computed tomography -- DCE-MRI dynamic contrast enhanced MRI -- DWI diffusion weighted imaging -- EPI echo planar imaging -- FS fat suppressed -- I inactive -- IMWG international myeloma working group criteria -- M-protein monoclonal protein -- MM multiple myeloma -- MRI magnetic resonance imaging -- PD progressive disease -- PR partial response -- ROI region of interest -- SCT stem cell transplantation -- SD stable disease -- SI signal intensity -- TIC time intensity curve -- VGPR very good partial response -- WB-MRI whole body MRI; Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI -- Diffusion weighted imaging -- Response assessment -- Multiple myeloma; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.040
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the value of the combined evaluation of SE MRI, dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in multiple myeloma (MM) patients after treatment compared to the international myeloma working group (IMWG) response criteria. Materials and methods: The retrospective study includes 27 newly diagnosed patients, providing 99 MRI-investigations. Patients were categorized according to the IMWG response criteria. Quantitative assessment was based on signal intensities (SI) of T1-weighted, fat-saturated T2-weighted and b1000 images, apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) and parameters from time-intensity-curves (TIC) derived from L3. Qualitative visual analysis of conventional MRI-images, b1000-images and TICs, providing a "combined skeletal score", was used to create MRI response criteria. Results: The combined skeletal score could significantly differentiate between subgroups based on IMWG response criteria ( p = 0.016). The gold standard plasmacytosis could significantly differentiate between subgroups based on MRI response criteria ( p < 0.001), as well as slope ( p < 0.001) and ADC ( p = 0.006). There is a good agreement between IMWG and MRI response criteria (Kendall's coefficient = 0.761). Conclusion: Response evaluation of MM-patients based on the combination of anatomical information from conventional MRI with functional information from DCE-MRI and DWI, is useful for monitoring therapy.