Combined evaluation of conventional MRI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging for response evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Julie C. Dutoit^a ; ^{Julie.Dutoit@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Eveline Claus^a ; ^{Eveline.Claus@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Fritz Offner^b ; ^{Fritz.Offner@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Lucien Noens^b ; ^{Lucien.Noens@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Joris Delanghe^c ; ^{Joris.Delanghe@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Koenraad L. Verstraete^a ; ¹ ; ^{Koenraad.Verstraete@UGent.be" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：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 transpla
• 刊名：European Journal of Radiology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：85
• 期：2
• 页码：373-382
• 全文大小：2578 K

文摘

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.