M Dimopoulos1, E Terpos1, RL Comenzo2, P Tosi3, M Beksac4, O Sezer5, D Siegel6, H Lokhorst7,
S Kumar8, SV Rajkumar8, R Niesvizky9, LA Moulopoulos10 BGM Durie11

1 ­ , , , ; 2 ­
, , , ; 3 ­
, , , ; 4 ­ , ,
; 5 ­ -, , , ; 6 ­
, , , ;
7 ­ , , , ; 8 ­
, , , ; 9 ­ ,
, -, ; 10 ­
, , , 11 ­ .,
« » .
, ,
()
. ,
(), - ()
, -
.

.
« »
.


,
. ( )

.
,




() . -
/ -
,
,
,
.
INTERNATIONAL MYELOMA FOUNDATION
12650 Riverside Drive, Suite 206, North Hollywood, CA 91607-3421 USA
Tel: 818-487-7455
Fax: 818-487-7454
Email: TheIMF@myeloma.org
Website: www.myeloma.org
TRANSLATION FROM ENGLISH TO RUSSIAN PROVIDED COURTESY OF CELGENE RUSSIA.
2
: , ,
, - ,
.
Leukemia (2009), 1­12

(MM) ­
, ,
, ,
. 90%
(1). , ,
, , , ,
(2). , 10%
(3).







.

- (4).
,
(5 ­ 7). ,
,
, (3, 8).
, ,
,
(9).








.


,



.

3
,
(10).
.
,
30% (11).
,

(12). ­ « » - .
, ,
, -

.
-





() - ().

,
/ .
-
(). 18-- ()
,
. -
, .
.
­ ,
.

1903 .
,





,
.
«»,
4
(13).
, «» (< 1 )

(14).

(15). ,
(16).
,
Durie­Salmon (17).
, « »
, , , ,
, , , ,
. 80%
,
: ­ 65% , ­ 45%, ­ 40%,
­ 40%, ­ 30% ­ 25%.

(18). ,
(
)
8 (19, 20).
,
, ,
«»
(21).

10- 20% (18).
, 1.
;
, -
. ,
,
5
, ,
, , ,
, (18).

. ,
.
-
23% (22).
20
/,
. ,
,
,
.

­
(), .
, 5 (23).
30 , ,
, , ,
(23).
(10). ,
, (8),


,
(24). ,
- « »
,
, ,

.
6

,
. ,
,
.

(25) (26). ,

(27).
: (1)
,
, ; (2)
,
­ ,
; , ,
; (3)
,
, , ,
, , , (28,
29); (4) ,
(30, 31); (5) ,
, , (32);
(6)
, ( 2).
, , ,
() (< 5 )
, (33).
,
. 1.3­3 ,
(31, 34). ,

7
,
. ,

, ,
. ,
, .
,
.
1.
_________________________________________________________________________
·

·
: 10-20% /
·
,
(, )
·

·
/

·

___________________________________________________________________________
2. ()
__________________________________________________________________________
·

·
,
·

·

·
,

·

·


___________________________________________________________________________
-

-
.
,
8
,
(35, 36). ,
(37).
,
.
.
, 10 , 6 ­ 10
, , 10
(38). ,
(39).

.
,
, 1-
, (< 1 )
, ,
.
,
, ,
1-,
2
(10).

(40, 41).
­
,
.
T2 (42).

.
,
: (1)
9
, (2)
, (3) /
, , ,
(4) /
(. 3).
3. - ()
___________________________________________________________________________
·
,
·

·

·

,
·

·
/

·

(),

·
(
)
___________________________________________________________________________


(43).
1-, 2- , STIR
( ) 1-
.
1-
2- STIR- (44); ,
, .
,
(45).
T1-TSE (TR: 700 , TE: 10 ), T2-TIRM
(TR: 8000 , TE: 80 ) T1-TSE
10
(TR: 700 , TE: 10 ).
(TIRM) ­ - - (TSE)
(IR)
(M). 59 , 23
, , T2-TIRM
.
,
, T2-TIRM, T1-
(45).


: (1) ,
, (2) , (3)
, (4)
, (5) « »
(35,46). 30%
,
1- 2
- ,
, , STIR (35). ,
50­75%
I Durie­Salmon 20% III
Durie­ Salmon (47, 48).
(<20 %
).

30% . T1-
, ,
, . T2-
, , ,
T1- ,
11
. STIR T2

(35, 47).

.
,
a . T1
. T2

. .
, (35, 47).

10% . T1-SE
,
.
. , 3-5%
« ». T1-SE,
T2-SE
.
.
, ,
(<20%) (35, 47).
,

T1,
T2
. ,
« » ,
(47 ­ 49). ,


12
. ,
(47).






.
,
, ,
(50), (51) .

, ,
. Ludwig et al , 192
18
41 ,
4 ,
(52).
Ghanem et al ,
20% (10/54),
. ,
, , 90% (27/30)
(53). ,

(75% 46% ) (76% 42% ) (54),
(55). 41
,
, ,
(56).
Walker et al 611
, (
).
, , 74 56% ,
. , 52% 267
. ,
13
,
: (78 16%; P<0.001),
(64 28%; P<0.001) (24 3%; P<0.001);
.
, , (10
43%; P<0.001) (.., ; 37 48%;
P=0.006) (57).

() ­
, 3 /100 ,
, ,
,
, 10%.

, 15% - 20% (58).
,
, , ,
(59). ,
. . Bellaiche et al
, (n = 24)
,
6 44
(13.6%)(60).
7 37 (19%)
( ,
10 30%). 30
,

(61).
14

2%
().
,
, ,

, ,
.
,
,
(62).

. Moulopoulos et al ,
-
4 12 .
, ,
, , .

18
(63). , Liebross et al , 7 8
,
, ,
7 , ,
1 (64). ,
,

.
.

30 / /
10%,
15
,
(),
(21). 15-
20% . 2-3
. ,
,
, , ,
(65, 66).
,
, 10
, (67).
30­50% (35, 47).
Moulopoulos et al ,
16 () 43 ,
(P<0.01) (68). , Mariette et al ,
, 25 , 10 53
, 8 17 2
38 .
(69).
.
,
(70).
MR
,

(46),
() (>7
7) (57). .
Moulopoulos et al ,
,

16
(71). ,
, T2-
- ,
(35).
(72),
, -






-
(73). ,

,
. ,
, 27 30
. , ,
22 (81%) 27 , 36
41% (57).
()
. Lecouvet et al
(74).
, ,
, .
0, 1 2, ,
, .
4 , 4 .
,
, 1 -. -
,
(75).


.
, ,
17
, ,
(20, 68, 70, 76).
,
, ,
(77).
, ,
, ,
(47­49,77). 142
Moulopoulos et al ,
24 ,
­ 51 ,
- 52 - 56
(P=0.001).
I II ISS ,
- 28
61 , (P=0.01). ,
, ,
(46).
,
,
. 611 ,
,
, (
) ,
. ,
7 : 5-
( 7
) 76% (n = 276),
- 61% (n = 262)
- 37% (n = 67).
(47) -
, , , 2-
18
.
, 60% ,
. ,
, ,
70% , 26%
, 28%
, , 15% ,
(57).


,
.
35­60% ,
,
,
(78­80). , ,

,
, (81). ,
,
, (1, 6, 7),
99Tcm- .

.
99mTc-
99mTc-
-2-
(99mTc-)
­


-
,

.
,
, 99mTc- ()
19
, ,
, , (82). -

(83, 84). ,
.
, ,
(85­87).

(83, 88, 89); ,
(88).

, (90).
92%, - 96% (89). ,
- -/ (91)
,
, (92).
.
, (93).
ISS,
2- (88, 94).
, -
ISS I III ,
II (88).
(97).
-
­ ,
, ,
­ -,
. ,

,

,
,
18-
(), .
20
. ,
1 , ,
(98). ,
,
. /
1 . ,
,
, / (
). ,
, -.
, ,
. /
( 30 ), ( 1 ),
(99).
, /
1 2.5,
(100). 5 ,
, ,
. 5 10 ,
2.5. ­ , (101).
-
85%, ­ 92%. -
66 , -

, -
(102). /,
(103, 103).
(NOPR),
, 22 975
, , 36.5%
/.
1300
. /
21
NCCN
(105).

.
, /
, ,
, 30% ,
(10, 106, 107).
/
, ,

(108, 109).
18- /,
( ) 46
/ , , 46%
, , 19%
. 30; /
, ,
. , 35% /
, .
/,
, , , 92%. 15
23 / ( 13

), 8 (110).
, , 18-
/
, (111),
-
(112).
, ,
/ , ,
/ ,
22
, ,
, (113, 114).
/ ,
, (
), , , ­
, ,
, , (115­117).
, / , ,
(97, 118),
(119).
, / .
, -11 (11C),
/ , 11C-,
19
(120).
, /
, .
NOPR,
18
( ,
), ,
«» « »,
49% (121).
.

, .
, , ,

(9).
23
( )







.

(12).
,
, 6 5­
10%. ­ , ,
() ,
, -
(<1 lSV) (122).
, (123)
,
, , ,
. ,

(12).


.
.
,
( ),
, , ,
.
, ,
.
, ,
, , ,
. ,
24
;
.

,
. ­

.
,
- , , ,

.

.
,
, , .
,
,
.
, .
, , -
,
,
.
.

.
, . ,
, .

. /
, .
,
25
, ,
, ,
.

1 Terpos E, Dimopoulos MA. Myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology and management. Ann Oncol 2005; 16:
1223­1231.
2 Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly
diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 2003; 78: 21­33.
3 Callander NS, Roodman GD. Myeloma bone disease. Semin Hematol 2001; 38: 276­285.
4 Raje N, Anderson KC. Multiple myeloma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2000; 1: 73­82.
5 Epstein J, Walker R. Myeloma and bone disease: ``the dangerous tango''. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 2006; 4:
300­306.
6 Giuliani N, Rizzoli V, Roodman GD. Multiple myeloma bone disease: pathophysiology of osteoblast
inhibition. Blood 2006; 108: 3992­3996.
7 Terpos E, Sezer O, Croucher P, Dimopoulos MA. Myeloma bone disease and proteasome inhibition therapies.
Blood 2007; 110: 1098­1104.
8 Wahlin A, Holm J, Osterman G, Norberg B. Evaluation of serial bone X-ray examination in multiple
myeloma. Acta Med Scand 1982; 212: 385­387.
9 Mileshkin L, Blum R, Seymour JF, Patrikeos A, Hicks RJ, Prince HM. A comparison of fluorine-18 fluoro-
deoxyglucose PET and technetium-99m sestamibi in assessing patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol
2004; 72: 32­37.
10 Mulligan ME, Badros AZ. PET/CT and MR imaging in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36: 5­16.
11 Edelstyn GA, Gillespie PJ, Grebbell FS. The radiological demonstration of osseous metastases. Experimental
observations. Clin Radiol 1967; 18: 158­162.
12 Abildgaard N, Brixen K, Eriksen EF, Kristensen JE, Nielsen JL, Heickendorff L. Sequential analysis of
biochemical markers of bone resorption and bone densitometry in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2004; 89:
567­577.
13 Boccadoro M, Pileri A. Plasma cell dyscrasias: classification, clinical and laboratory characteristics, and
differential diagnosis. Baillieres Clin Haematol 1995; 8: 705­719.
14 Agren B, Lo¨nnqvist B, Bjo¨rkstrand B, Rudberg U, Aspelin P. Radiography and bone scintigraphy in bone
marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 144­150.
15 Kapadia SB. Multiple myeloma: a clinicopathologic study of 62 consecutively autopsied cases. Medicine
1980; 59: 380­392.
16 Chassang M, Grimaud A, Cucchi JM, Novellas S, Amoretti N, Chevallier P et al. Can low-dose computed
tomographic scan of the spine replace conventional radiography? An evaluation based on imaging myelomas,
bone metastases, and fractures from osteoporosis. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 225­227.
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: 842­854.
18 Collins CD. Multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2004; 4 (Spec No A): S47­S53.
19 Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos A, Smith T, Delasalle KB, Alexanian R. Risk of disease progression in
asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1993; 94: 57­61.
20 Wisløff F, Andersen P, Andersson TR, Brandt E, Eika C, Fjaestad K et al. Incidence and follow-up of
asymptomatic multiple myeloma. The myeloma project of health region I in Norway. II. Eur J Haematol 1991;
47: 338­341.
21 International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple
myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;
121: 749­757.
22 Singh J, Fairbairn KJ, Williams C, Das-Gupta EP, Russell NH, Byrne JL. Expert radiological review of
skeletal surveys identifies additional abnormalities in 23% of cases: further evidence for the value of myeloma
multi-disciplinary teams in the accurate staging and treatment of myeloma patients. Br J Haematol 2007; 137:
172­173.
23 Mulligan M, Smith S, Talmi D. Whole body radiography for bone survey screening of cancer and myeloma
patients. Cancer Invest 2008; 26: 916­922.
26
24 Collins CD. Problems monitoring response in multiple myeloma. Cancer Imaging 2005; 5 (Spec No A):
S119­S126.
25 Antevil JL, Sise MJ, Sack DI, Kidder B, Hopper A, Brown CV. Spiral computed tomography for the initial
evaluation of spine trauma: a new standard of care? J Trauma 2006; 61: 382­387.
26 Obaid AK, , Barleben A, Portal D, Lush S, Cinat M. Utility of plain film pelvic radiographs in blunt trauma
patients in the emergency department. Am Surg 2006; 72: 951­954.
27 Kyle RA. Multiple myeloma: current therapy and a glimpse of the future. Scand J Haematol 1985; 35: 38­47.
28 Scutellari PN, Addonisio G, Righi R, Giganti M. Diagnostic imaging of bone metastases. Radiol Med 2000;
100: 429­435.
29 Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U et al. Multidetector CT of
the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;
180: 1429­1436.
30 Horger M, Kanz L, Denecke B, Vonthein R, Pereira P, Claussen CD et al. The benefit of using whole-body,
low-dose, nonenhanced, multidetector computed tomography for follow-up and therapy response monitoring in
patients with multiple myeloma. Cancer 2007; 109: 1617­1626.
31 Horger M, Claussen CD, Bross-Bach U, Vonthein R, Trabold T, Heuschmid M et al. Whole-body low-dose
multidetector row-CT in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma: an alternative to conventional radiography. Eur J
Radiol 2005; 54: 289­297.
32 Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, Dang D, Stamato SK, Lee P et al. Whole-body CT screening: spectrum
of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 2005; 237: 385­394.
33 Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Efficacy of multidetector row computed tomography of the spine
in patients with multiple myeloma: comparison with magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose-
positron emission tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31: 342­347.
34 Chassang M, Grimaud A, Cucchi JM, Novellas S, Amoretti N, Chevallier P et al. Can low-dose computed
tomographic scan of the spine replace conventional radiography? An evaluation based on imaging myelomas,
bone metastases, and fractures from osteoporosis. Clin Imaging 2007; 31: 225­227.
35 Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Durr HR, Reiser M. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple
myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 56­63.
36 Mahnken AH, Wildberger JE, Gehbauer G, Schmitz-Rode T, Blaum M, Fabry U et al. Multidetector CT of
the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;
178: 1429­1436.
37 Joffe J, Williams MP, Cherryman GR, Gore M, McElwain TJ, Selby P. Magnetic resonance imaging in
myeloma. Lancet 1988; 1: 1162­1163.
38 Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Michaux JL, Lehmann F, Maldague BE et al. Vertebral compression
fractures in multiple myeloma. Part II. Assessment of fracture risk with MR imaging of spinal bone marrow.
Radiology 1997; 204: 201­205.
39 Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Jamart J, Maldague BE, Malghem J. Development of vertebral
fractures in patients with multiple myeloma: does MRI enable recognition of vertebrae that will collapse? J
Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22: 430­436.
40 Van Gelderen WF, al-Hindawi M, Gale RS, Steward AH, Archibald CG. Significance of short tau inversion
recovery magnetic resonance sequence in the management of skeletal injuries. Australas Radiol 1997; 41: 13­
15.
41 Diamond TH, Hartwell T, Clarke W, Manoharan A. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for acute vertebral body
fracture and deformity in multiple myeloma: a short report. Br J Haematol 2004; 124: 485­487.
42 Lafforgue P, Dahan E, Chagnaud C, Schiano A, Kasbarian M, Acquaviva PC. Early-stage avascular necrosis
of the femoral head: MR imaging for prognosis in 31 cases with at least 2 years of follow-up. Radiology 1993;
187: 199­204.
43 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the bone marrow in hematologic
malignancies. Blood 1997; 90: 2127­2147.
44 Libshitz HI, Malthouse SR, Cunningham D, MacVicar AD, Husband JE. Multiple myeloma: appearance at
MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 182: 833­837.
45 Weininger M, Lauterbach B, Knop S, Pabst T, Kenn W, Hahn D et al. Whole-body MRI of multiple
myeloma: Comparison of different MRI sequences in assessment of different growth patterns. Eur J Radiol
2008; 69: 339­345.
46 Moulopoulos LA, Gika D, Anagnostopoulos A, Delasalle K, Weber D, Alexanian R et al. Prognostic
significance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple
myeloma. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 1824­1828.
27
47 Moulopoulos LA, Varma DG, Dimopoulos MA, Leeds NE, Kim EE, Johnston DA et al. Multiple myeloma:
spinal MR imaging in patients with untreated newly diagnosed disease. Radiology 1992; 185: 833­840.
48 Stabler A, Baur A, Bartl R, Munker R, Lamerz R, Reiser MF. Contrast enhancement and quantitative signal
analysis in MR imaging of multiple myeloma: assessment of focal and diffuse growth patterns in marrow
correlated with biopsies and survival rates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167: 1029­1036.
49 Carlson K, Astrom G, Nyman R, Ahlstrom H, Simonsson B. MR imaging of multiple myeloma in tumour
mass measurement of diagnosis and during treatment. Acta Radiol 1995; 36: 9­14.
50 Isoda H, Kojima H, Shimizu K, Kurokawa H, Ikeda K, Sawada S et al. Multiple myeloma: short T2 on MR
imaging. Clin Imaging 2001; 25: 141­143.
51 Baur A, Sta¨bler A, Lamerz R, Bartl R, Reiser M. Light chain deposition disease in multiple myeloma: MR
imaging features correlated with histopathological findings. Skeletal Radiol 1998; 27: 173­176.
52 Ludwig H, Fruhwald F, Tscholakoff D, Rasoul S, Neuhold A, Fritz E. Magnetic resonance imaging of the
spine in multiple myeloma. Lancet 1987; 2: 364­366.
53 Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, Pache G, Uhl M, Saueressig U et al. Whole-body MRI in the
detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological
skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1005­1014.
54 Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Maldague B, Ferrant A, Michaux JL et al. Skeletal survey in advanced
multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999; 106: 35­39.
55 Tertti R, Alanen A, Remes K. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in screening myeloma lesions of the
lumbar spine. Br J Haematol 1995; 91: 658­660.
56 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: 1097­1104.
57 Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, Tricot G, Anaissie E, Shaughnessy Jr JD et al. Magnetic resonance
imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1121­1128.
58 Kyle RA, Therneau TM, Rajkumar SV, Larson DR, Plevak MF, Offord JR et al. Prevalence of monoclonal
gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1362­1369.
59 Pepe J, Petrucci MT, Nofroni I, Fassino V, Diacinti D, Romagnoli E et al. Lumbar bone mineral density as
the major factor determining increased prevalence of vertebral fractures in monoclonal gammopathy of
undetermined significance. Br J Haematol 2006; 134: 485­490.
60 Bellai¨che L, Laredo JD, Liote´ F, Koeger AC, Hamze B, Ziza JM et al. Magnetic resonance appearance of
monoclonal gammopathies of unknown significance and multiple myeloma. The GRI Study Group. Spine 1997;
22: 2551­2557.
61 Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Lecouvet FE, Labaisse M, Malghem J, Jamart J et al. Nonmyelomatous
monoclonal gammopathy: correlation of bone marrow MR images with laboratory findings and spontaneous
clinical outcome. Radiology 1997; 202: 247­251.
62 Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Maniatis A, Alexanian R. Solitary plasmacytoma of bone and
asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Blood 2000; 96: 2037­2044.
63 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Weber D, Fuller L, Libshitz HI, Alexanian R. Magnetic resonance
imaging in the staging of solitary plasmacytoma of bone. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1311­1315.
64 Liebross RH, Ha CS, Cox JD, Weber D, Delasalle K, Alexanian R. Solitary bone plasmacytoma: outcome
and prognostic factors following radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41: 1063­1067.
65 He Y, Wheatley K, Clark O, Glasmacher A, Ross H, Djulbegovic B. Early versus deferred treatment for
early stage multiple myeloma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 1: CD004023.
66 Terpos E, Rahemtulla A, Dimopoulos MA. Current treatment options for myeloma. Expert Opin
Pharmacother 2005; 6: 1127­1142.
67 Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos A, Smith T, Delasalle KB, Alexanian R. Risk of disease progression in
asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Am J Med 1993; 94: 57­61.
68 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Smith TL, Weber DM, Delasalle KB, Libshitz HI et al. Prognostic
significance of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol
1995; 13: 251­256.
69 Mariette X, Zagdanski AM, Guermazi A, Bergot C, Arnould A, Frija J et al. Prognostic value of vertebral
lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with stage I multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1999;
104: 723­729.
70 Weber DM, Dimopoulos MA, Moulopoulos LA, Delasalle KB, Smith T, Alexanian R. Prognostic features of
asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1997; 97: 810­814.
71 Moulopoulos LA, Dimopoulos MA, Alexanian R, Leeds NE, Libshitz HI. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of
response to treatment. Radiology 1994; 193: 441­446.
28
72 Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Malghem J, Maldague BE. Magnetic resonance and computed tomography
imaging in multiple myeloma. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2001; 5: 43­55.
73 Rahmouni A, Divine M, Mathieu D, Golli M, Dao TH, Jazaerli N et al. Detection of multiple myeloma
involving the spine: efficacy of fat-suppression and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol
1993; 160: 1049­1052.
74 Lecouvet FE, Dechambre S, Malghem J, Ferrant A, Vande Berg BC, Maldague B. Bone marrow
transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: prognostic significance of MR imaging. AJR Am J
Roentgenol 2001; 176: 91­96.
75 Hartman RP, Sundaram M, Okuno SH, Sim FH. Effect of granulocyte-stimulating factors on marrow of adult
patients with musculoskeletal malignancies: incidence and MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:
645­653.
76 Van de Berg BC, Lecouvet FE, Michaux L, Labaisse M, Malghem J, Jamart J et al. Stage I multiple
myeloma: value of MR imaging of the bone marrow in the determination of prognosis. Radiology 1996; 201:
243­246.
77 Lecouvet FE, Vande Berg BC, Michaux L, Malghem J, Maldague BE, Jamart J et al. Stage III multiple
myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. Radiology 1998; 209: 653­660.
78 Woolfenden JM, Pitt MJ, Durie BG, Moon TE. Comparison of bone scintigraphy and radiography in
multiple myeloma. Radiology 1980; 134: 723­728.
79 Wahner HW, Kyle RA, Beabout JW. Scintigraphic evaluation of the skeleton in multiple myeloma. Mayo
Clin Proc 1980; 55: 739­746.
80 Scutellari PN, Spanedda R, Feggi LM, Cervi PM. The value and limitations of total body scan in the
diagnosis of multiple myeloma: a comparison with conventional skeletal radiography. Haematologica 1985; 70:
136­142.
81 Agren B, Lo¨nnqvist B, Bjorkstrand B, Rudberg U, Aspelin P. Radiography and bone scintigraphy in bone
marrow transplant multiple myeloma patients. Acta Radiol 1997; 38: 144­150.
82 Maffioli L, Steevens J, Pauwels E, Bombardieri E. Applications of 99mTc-sestaMIBI in oncology. Tumori
1996; 82: 12­29.
83 Balleari E, Villa G, Garre S, Ghirlanda P, Agnese G, Carletto M et al. Technetium-99m-sestaMIBI
scintigraphy in multiple myeloma and related gammopathies: a useful tool for the identification and follow-up
of myeloma bone disease. Haematologica 2001; 86: 78­84.
84 Tiravola EB, Biassoni L, Britton KE, Kaleva N, Kouykin V, Malpas JS. The use of 99m-Tc-MIBI scanning
in multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer 1996; 74: 1815­1820.
85 Adams BK, Fataar A, Nizami MA. Technetium-99m-sestaMIBI uptake in myeloma. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:
1001­1002.
86 Fonti R, Del Vecchio S, Zannetti A, De Renzo A, Di Gennaro F, Catalano L et al. Bone marrow uptake of
99mTc-MIBI in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Nucl Med 2001; 28: 1430­1432.
87 Ak I, Aslan V, VArdareli E, Gulbas Z. Tc-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile bone marrow imaging for
predicting the levels of myeloma cells in bone marrow: correlation with CD38/CD138 expressing myeloma
cells. Ann Hematol 2003; 82: 88­92.
88 Giovanella L, Taborelli M, Ceriani L, Zucca E, Cavalli F, Delaloye AB. 99mTc-sestamibi imaging and bone
marrow karyotyping in the assessment of multiple myeloma and MGUS. Nucl Med Commun 2008; 29: 535­
541.
89 Villa G, Balleari E, Carletto M, Grosso M, Clavio M, Piccardo A et al. Staging and therapy monitoring of
multiple myeloma by 99mTc-sestamibi scintigraphy: a five year single center experience. J Exp Clin Cancer
Res 2005; 24: 355­361.
90 Alper E, Gurel M, Evrensel T, Ozkocaman V, Akbunar T, Demiray M. 99mTc-MIBI scintigraphy in
untreated stage III multiple myeloma: comparison with X-ray skeletal survey and bone scintigraphy. Nucl Med
Commun 2003; 24: 537­542.
91 Hung GU, Tsai CC, Tsai SC, Lin WY. Comparison of Tc-99m sestamibi and F-18 FDG-PET in the
assessment of multiple myeloma. Anticancer Res 2005; 25: 4737­4741.
92 Mirzaei S, Filipits M, Keck A, Bergmayer W, Knoll P, Koehn H et al. Comparison of Technetium-99m-
MIBI imaging with MRI for detection of spine involvement in patients with multiple myeloma. BMC Nucl Med
2003; 3: 2.
93 Nandurkar D, Kalff V, Turlakow A, Spencer A, Bailey MJ, Kelly MJ. Focal MIBI uptake is a better indicator
of active myeloma than diffuse uptake. Eur J Haematol 2006; 76: 141­146.
94 Koutsikos J, Grigoraki V, Athanasoulis T, Velidaki A, Mamoulakis C, Zomas A et al. Scintigraphy with
technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile in multiple myeloma patients: correlation with the International
Staging System. Hell J Nucl Med 2006; 9: 177­180.
29
95 Pace L, Catalano L, Del Vecchio S, De Renzo A, Fonti R, Salvatore B et al. Washout of sestamibi in
predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 49:
281­285.
96 Athanasoulis T, Koutsikos J, Moulopoulos LA, Tsiouris S, Dimopoulos MA, Zerva C. Reverse of the
differential uptake intensity of Tc-99m MIBI and Tc-99m V-DMSA by multiple myeloma lesions in response to
therapy. Clin Nucl Med 2003; 28: 631­635.
97 Catalano L, Del Vecchio S, Petruzziello F, Fonti R, Salvatore B, Martorelli C et al. Sestamibi and FDG-PET
scans to support diagnosis of jaw osteonecrosis. Ann Hematol 2007; 86: 415­423.
98 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: 1199­1204.
99 D'Sa S, Abildgaard N, Tighe J, Shaw P, Hall-Craggs M. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the
management of myeloma. Br J Haematol 2007; 137: 49­63.
100 Nosa`s-Garcia S, Moehler T, Wasser K, Kiessling F, Bartl R, Zuna I et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
for assessing the disease activity of multiple myeloma: a comparative study with histology and clinical markers.
J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22: 154­162.
101 Larson SM, Erdi Y, Akhurst T, Mazumdar M, Macapinlac HA, Finn RD et al. Tumor treatment response
based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET/FDG imaging. The visual
response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 1999; 2: 159­171.
102 Durie BGM, Waxman AD, D'Agnolo A, Williams C. Whole-body F-FDG PET identifies high-risk
myeloma. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1457­1463.
103 Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, Shields AF, Gareen IF, Hanna L et al. Impact of positron emission
tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of
patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155­
2161.
104 Larson SM. Practice-based evidence of the beneficial impact of positron emission tomography in clinical
oncology. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2083­2084.
105 http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/myeloma.pdf.
106 Even-Sapir E, Mishani E, Flusser G, Metser U. 18F-Fluoride positron emission tomography and positron
emission tomography/computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2007; 37: 462­469.
107 Schirrmeister H, Buck AK, Bergmann L, Reske SN, Bommer M. Positron emission tomography (PET) for
staging of solitary plasmacytoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2003; 18: 841­845.
108 Nanni C, Rubello D, Zamagni E, Castellucci P, Ambrosini V, Montini G et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in
myeloma with presumed solitary plasmocytoma of bone. In Vivo 2008; 22: 513­517.
109 Salaun P-Y, Gastinne T, Frampas E, Boddet-Milin C, Moreau P, Bodere-Kraeber F. FDG-positron-emission
tomography for staging and therapeutic assessment in patients with plasmacytoma. Haematologica 2008; 93:
1269­1271.
110 Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O et al. A prospective comparison of
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging
and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Haematologica 2007; 92: 50­55.
111 Fonti R, Salvatore B,QuarantelliM, Sirignano C, Segreto S, Petruzziello F et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-
MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J NuclMed 2008; 49: 195­200.
112 Hur J, Yoon CS, Ryu YH, Yun MJ, Suh JS. Comparative study of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission
tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of spinal bone marrow infiltration in untreated
patients with multiple myeloma. Acta Radiol 2008; 49: 427­435.
113 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: 525­531.
114 Breyer III RJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ. Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT
with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2006; 35: 632­640.
115 Gorospe L, Raman S, Echeveste J, Avril N, Herrero Y, Herna Ndez S. Whole-body PET/CT: spectrum of
physiological variants, artifacts and interpretative pitfalls in cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 671­
687.
116 Cook G, Wegner E, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging.
Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34: 122­133. 117 Strobel K, Bode B, Lardinois D, Exner U. PET-positive fibrous
dysplasia­a potentially misleading incidental finding in a patient with intimal sarcoma of the pulmonary artery.
Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36 (Suppl 1): S24­S28.
30
118 Badros A, Weikel D, Salama A, Goloubeva O, Schneider A, Rapoport A et al. Osteonecrosis of the jaw in
multiple myeloma patients: clinical features and risk factors. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 945­952.
119 Talamo G, Angtuaco E, Walker RC, Dong L, Miceli MH, Zangari M et al. Avascular necrosis of femoral
and/or humeral heads in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 5217­5223.
120 Dankerl A, Liebisch P, Glatting G, Friesen C, Blumstein NM, Kocot D et al. Multiple myeloma: molecular
imaging with 11Cmethionine PET/CT ­ initial experience. Radiology 2007; 242: 498­508.
121 Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Shields AF, Liu D, Gareen IF, Hunt E et al. Relationship between cancer type and
impact of PET and PET/CT on intended management: findings of the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl
Med 2008; 49: 1928­1935.
122 Lewis MK, Blake GM, Fogelman I. Patient dose in dual x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int 1994; 4: 11­
15.
123 Masud T, Langley S, Wiltshire P, Doyle DV, Spector TD. Effect of spinal osteophytosis on bone mineral
density measurements in vertebral osteoporosis. BMJ 1993; 307: 172­173.
###

Document Outline