MONITORING BONE MARROW LESIONS BY MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA AFTER AUTOLOGOUS STEM-CELL TRANSPLANTATION
M. V. Solovyev,
L. P. Mendeleeva,
G. A. Yatsyk,
N. S. Lutsik,
M. V. Firsova,
E. G. Gemdzhian,
V. G. Savchenko https://doi.org/10.25837/HAT.2018.67..2..001
Abstract
Introduction. Despite the availability of results from several studies that evaluated the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM), data on the value of MRI after antineoplastic treatment, in particular after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT), are limited.
Objective. To study changes in bone marrow lesions using MRI in MM patients before and after auto-HSCT.
Materials and methods. Forty patients with MM (15 male and 25 female) aged 36 to 66 years (median age 56 years) were enrolled in a prospective study. MRI of the spine and pelvic bones was performed before and 100 days after auto-HSCT to track bone marrow changes after transplantation. MRI was carried out with a GE Signa Profile system without contrast enhancement. The nature of the lesions was determined, and the bone marrow infiltration lesions (≥ 5 mm) were counted.
Results. MR images showed a decrease in the number of foci after auto-HSCT in 17 (52%) patients, and a reduction in the volume of the tumors in 29 (88%) patients. In most patients, even when a complete response (CR) was achieved, MRI revealed residual tumor load in the bone marrow, which decreased after auto-HSCT (by 1.4 times in the number of detectable lesions, and by 2.4 times in the tumor volume).
Conclusion. By making it possible to evaluate the residual tumor load, whole-body bone marrow MRI can be used as an additional non-invasive method for assessing response to antitumor therapy in MM patients.
About the Authors
M. V. Solovyev
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Maksim V. Solovyev, M.D., postgraduate, Department of High-Dose Chemotherapy of Paraproteinemic Hemoblastosis
Russian Federation
Maksim V. Solovyev, M.D., postgraduate, Department of High-Dose Chemotherapy of Paraproteinemic Hemoblastosis
L. P. Mendeleeva
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
G. A. Yatsyk
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
N. S. Lutsik
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. V. Firsova
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
E. G. Gemdzhian
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. G. Savchenko
National Research Center for Hematology, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Mendeleeva L. P., Votyakova O. M., Pokrovskaya O. S. et al. National clinical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of multiple myeloma. Russian Journal of Hematology and Transfusiology (Gematologiya i transfuziologiya) 2016; 61:1—24 (in Russian). doi: 10.18821/0234-5730-2016-61-1.
2. Solovev M. V., Mendeleeva L. P., Pokrovskaya O. S. et al. Epidemiology of multiple myeloma in Russia (results of a multicenter interregional study). Russian Journal of Hematology and Transfusiology (Gematologiya i transfuziologiya) 2016; 61:28 (in Russian).
3. Solovev M. V., Mendeleeva L. P., Pokrovskaya O. S. et al. Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of patients with multiple myeloma. Results of a prospective multicenter study in Russian Federation. Blood 2015; 126:4248. http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/126/23/4248/tab-e-letters.
4. Edwards C. M., Zhuang J., Mundy G. R. The pathogenesis of the bone disease of multiple myeloma. Bone 2008; 42:1007—1013. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2008.01.027.
5. Roodman G. D. Pathogenesis of myeloma bone disease. Leukemia 2009; 23:435—441. doi: 10.1038/leu.2008.336.
6. Rajkumar S. V., Dimopoulos M. A., Palumbo A. et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. The Lancet Oncology 2014; 15:538—548. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5.
7. Hillengass J., Fechtner K., Weber M.-A. et al. Prognostic signifi cance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2010; 28:1606—1610. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.5356.
8. Raza S., Leng S., Lentzsch S. The critical role of imaging in the management of multiple myeloma. Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports 2017; 12:168—175. doi: 10.1007/s11899-017-0379-9.
9. Boccadoro M., Pileri A. Plasma cell dyscrasias: classifi cation, clinical and laboratory characteristics, and differential diagnosis. Baillière’s Clinical Haematology 1995; 8:705—719.
10. Hillengass J., Ayyaz S., Kilk K. et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2012; 97:1757—1760. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2012.065359.
11. Durie B. G., Salmon S. E. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer 1975; 36:842—854.
12. Chantry A., Kazmi M., Barrington S. et al. Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of patients with myeloma. British Journal of Haematology 2017; 178:380—393. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14827.
13. Minarik J., Krhovska P., Hrbek J. et al. Prospective comparison of conventional radiography, low-dose computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in monoclonal gammopathies. Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky 2016; 160:305—309. doi: 10.5507/bp.2015.064.
14. Baur-Melnyk A., Buhmann S., Durr H. R. et al. Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiology 2005; 55:56—63. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.01.017.
15. Dimopoulos M., Terpos E., Comenzo R. L. et al. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23:1545—1556. doi: 10.1038/leu.2009.89.
16. Bray T. J. P., Singh S., Latifoltojar A. et al. Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: A multi-reader study. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0180562с. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180562.
17. Lasocki A., Gaillard F., Harrison S. Multiple myeloma of the spine. The neuroradiology journal 2017; 30:259—268. doi: 10.1177/1971400917699426
18. Isoda H., Kojima H., Shimizu K. et al. Multiple myeloma: short T2 on MR imaging. Clinical Imaging 2001; 25:141—143.
19. Moulopoulos L. A., Gika D., Anagnostopoulos A. et al. Prognostic signifi cance of magnetic resonance imaging of bone marrow in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma. Annals of Oncology: Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2005; 16:1824—1828. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi362.
20. Mai E. K., Hielscher T., Kloth J. K. et al. Association between magnetic resonance imaging patterns and baseline disease features in multiple myeloma: analyzing surrogates of tumour mass and biology. European Radiology 2016; 26:3939—3948. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4195-0.
21. Walker R., Barlogie B., Haessler J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: Diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncology 2007; 25:1121—1128. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.5803.
22. Moulopoulos L. A., Dimopoulos M. A., Alexanian R. et al. Multiple myeloma: MR patterns of response to treatment. Radiology 1994; 193:441—446.
23. Sonneveld P., Avet-Loiseau H., Lonial S. et al. Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: A consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Blood 2016; 127:2955—2962. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-01-631200.
24. Kumar S., Paiva B., Anderson K. C. et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. The Lancet Oncology 2016; 17:328—346. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6.
25. Solovyev M. V., Mendeleeva L. P., Pokrovskaya O. S. et al. Multiple myeloma: Maintenance therapy after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, depending on minimal residual disease. Therapeutic Archive (Terapevticheskiy arkhiv) 2017; 89:25—31 (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17116/terarkh201789725-31.
Review
For citations:
Solovyev M.V., Mendeleeva L.P., Yatsyk G.A., Lutsik N.S., Firsova M.V., Gemdzhian E.G., Savchenko V.G. MONITORING BONE MARROW LESIONS BY MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE MYELOMA AFTER AUTOLOGOUS STEM-CELL TRANSPLANTATION. Russian journal of hematology and transfusiology. 2018;63(2):103-112. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25837/HAT.2018.67..2..001
Views:
709
Email this article 
