RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To compare the NaF uptake in the thoracic aorta and whole heart, as an early indicator of atherosclerosis, in multiple myeloma (MM) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) patients with a healthy control (HC) group. METHODS: Forty-four untreated myeloma patients (35 MM and nine SMM) and twenty-six age and gender-matched HC subjects were collected. Each individual's NaF uptake in three parts of the aorta (AA: ascending aorta, AR: aortic arch, DA: descending aorta) and the whole heart was segmented. Average global standardized uptake value means were derived by sum of the product of each slice area divided by the sum of those slice areas. Results were reported as target to background ratio (TBR). RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the NaF uptake in the thoracic aorta of myeloma and HC groups [AA (myeloma = 1.82 ± 0.21, HC = 1.24 ± 0.02), AR (myeloma = 1.71 ± 0.19, HC = 1.28 ± 0.03) and DA (myeloma = 1.96 ± 0.28, HC = 1.38 ± 0.03); P-values < 0.001]. The difference in the whole heart NaF uptake between two groups was also significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a higher uptake of NaF in the thoracic aorta and whole heart of myeloma patients in comparison to the matched control group.
Assuntos
Aterosclerose/complicações , Aterosclerose/diagnóstico por imagem , Radioisótopos de Flúor , Mieloma Múltiplo/complicações , Tomografia por Emissão de Pósitrons combinada à Tomografia Computadorizada/métodos , Mieloma Múltiplo Latente/complicações , Fluoreto de Sódio , Humanos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
The lengthy debate on the validity of the amyloid hypothesis and the usefulness of amyloid imaging and anti-amyloid therapeutic interventions in dementia continues unabated, even though none of them have been able to convince the medical world of their correctness and clinical value. There are huge financial interests associated with promoting both, but in spite of the large sums of money in their support, no effective anti-amyloid treatments or diagnostic use of amyloid imaging have emerged. There are solid scientific reasons that explain these negative results, and it is time to move forward to other promising options for the benefit of the patients.