Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common adult hematologic malignancy, and early intervention increases survival in asymptomatic high-risk patients. Imaging is crucial for the diagnosis and follow-up of MM, as the detection of bone and bone marrow lesions often dictates the decision to start treatment. Low-dose whole-body computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice for the initial assessment, and dual-energy CT is a developing technique with the potential for detecting non-lytic marrow infiltration and evaluating the response to treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is more sensitive and specific than 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for the detection of small focal lesions and diffuse marrow infiltration. However, FDG-PET/CT is recommended as the modality of choice for follow-up. Recently, diffusion-weighted MRI has become a new technique for the quantitative assessment of disease burden and therapy response. Although not widespread, we address current proposals for structured reporting to promote standardization and diminish variations. This review provides an up-to-date overview of MM imaging, indications, advantages, limitations, and recommended reporting of each technique. We also cover the main differential diagnosis and pitfalls and discuss the ongoing controversies and future directions, such as PET-MRI and artificial intelligence.

Agreement Between 18F-FDG PET/CT and Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Compared With Skeletal Survey for Initial Staging and Response at End-of-Treatment Evaluation of Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between whole-body (WB) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT, and skeletal survey (SS) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) for diagnosis, initial staging, response evaluation, and early detection of complications. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including MM patients who were diagnosed, treated, and followed in 2 institutions. These patients were studied with SS, WB-MR, and/or 18F-FDG PET/CT. We studied bone lesions by anatomical locations and analyzed the concordance between SS and a tomographic technique (WB-MR or 18F-FDG PET/CT) and between both tomographic techniques (WB-MR and PET/CT). RESULTS: Forty-four MM patients with a mean age of 62.6 years (range, 38-85 years) were included from January 2012 to February 2016. Whole-body MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT found more lesions than SS in every location except in the skull. Concordance between WB-MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT was either good or excellent in most of the locations and in plasmacytoma studies. However, WB-MR was better than 18F-FDG PET/CT in the study of complications (medullar compression and vascular necrosis). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the study of MM patients should include WB-MR and/or 18F-FDG PET/CT, whereas SS is only useful for the skull. Whole-body MR and 18F-FDG PET/CT are complementary techniques, because both of them show good concordance in almost every location. It is still necessary to individualize the indication of each technique according to patient characteristics.

Retrospective comparison between COBE SPECTRA and SPECTRA OPTIA apheresis systems for hematopoietic progenitor cells collection for autologous and allogeneic transplantation in a single center.

INTRODUCTION: COBE SPECTRA [COBE] (Terumo, BCT Lakewood CO) apheresis system has been the most used device for hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) collection. Recently, it has been replaced by the SPECTRA OPTIA [OPTIA] (Terumo, BCT Lakewood CO) apheresis system. The aim of our study is to compare both methods for HPC collection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared 302 HPC collection apheresis procedures (115 allogeneic donors and 187 autologous). The study cohort was divided according to the apheresis system used to analyze the differences between COBE and OPTIA, specifically efficacy of apheresis procedure and product characteristics. RESULTS: OPTIA collections result in a higher CD34+ collection efficiency in both groups (autologous 45.3% vs 41%, P < .006; allogeneic 54.9% vs 45%, P < .0001). The total of CD34+ cells ×106 /kg recipient collected in the product were comparable in both groups (autologous 2.9 in OPTIA group vs 2.8 in COBE group, P = .344; allogeneic 6.2 in OPTIA group vs 5.8 in COBE group, P = .186). The percentage of platelet loss in autologous donors was significantly lower (35.7% vs 40.8%, P < .01). Regarding quality of the product, we observed a significantly lower hematocrit in products collected with OPTIA in both groups (1.8% vs 4%, P < .0001) as well as significantly lower amount of leukocytes (median 153.4 vs 237.2 × 109 /L in autologous, P < .0001; 239.5 vs 340.2 × 109 /L in allogeneic P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Both apheresis systems are comparable in collection of hematopoietic progenitor cells, with significantly higher collection efficiency with the OPTIA system. Collection products obtained with OPTIA contain significantly lower hematocrit and leukocytes.