Multidetector CT of the spine in multiple myeloma: comparison with MR imaging and radiography.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare multidetector CT (MDCT) of the thoracic and lumbar segments of the spine with MR imaging and conventional radiography for bone lesion detection and for evaluating the risk of vertebral fracture in multiple myeloma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Eighteen patients with multiple myeloma stage III (according to the criteria of Durie and Salmon) underwent MDCT, conventional radiography, and MR imaging of the lumbar and thoracic spine. MDCT was performed using a standard protocol with no contrast material. Source images were reconstructed using an effective slice thickness of 3 mm with an overlapping reconstruction increment (0.8 mm). Secondary coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformations were exclusively used for establishing the diagnosis. Findings were compared with those of MR imaging and conventional radiography. RESULTS In all patients, coronal and sagittal multiplanar reformations depicted the extent of osseous destruction and provided detailed information about osseous infiltration and potential bone instability. Compared with conventional radiography, an additional 24 affected vertebrae, 15 additional vertebral fractures, and six vertebrae at further risk of fracture were detected on MDCT. Compared with MR imaging, three additional endangered vertebrae were detected on MDCT. MR imaging alone would have lead to an understaging of five (27.8%) of 18 patients. Using combined radiography and MR imaging, disease in three (16.7%) of 18 patients would have been understaged. CONCLUSION MDCT seems to be preferable to conventional radiography in evaluating bone destruction in multiple myeloma. In combination with MR imaging, detailed information for staging these tumors is obtained. For the initial staging in patients with multiple myeloma, MDCT in combination with MR imaging seems to be the method of choice.

[1]  L. Martí-Bonmatí,et al.  MR imaging of a case of adenomatoid tumor of the adrenal gland , 1999, European Radiology.

[2]  R A McLeod,et al.  Multiple myeloma: evaluation by CT. , 1985, Radiology.

[3]  M. Boccadoro,et al.  Diagnosis, prognosis, and standard treatment of multiple myeloma. , 1997, Hematology/oncology clinics of North America.

[4]  S. Salmon,et al.  A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival , 1975, Cancer.

[5]  Jens Krause,et al.  Spiral Interpolation Algorithms for Multi-Slice Spiral CT Part I: Theory , 2000, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[6]  B. Maldague,et al.  Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic versus MR imaging survey , 1999, British journal of haematology.

[7]  B. Maldague,et al.  Stage III multiple myeloma: clinical and prognostic value of spinal bone marrow MR imaging. , 1998, Radiology.

[8]  M. Attal,et al.  Comparison of MRI and computed tomography in the various stages of plasma cell disorders: correlations with biological and histological findings. Myélome-Midi-Pyrénées Group. , 1996, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[9]  B. Maldague,et al.  Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomography Imaging in Multiple Myeloma , 2001, Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology.

[10]  M. Mulligan Myeloma and lymphoma. , 2000, Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology.

[11]  B. Maldague,et al.  Development of vertebral fractures in patients with multiple myeloma: does MRI enable recognition of vertebrae that will collapse? , 1998, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  H. Lokhorst,et al.  Comparison of plasma cell infiltration in bone marrow biopsies and aspirates in patients with multiple myeloma , 1992, British journal of haematology.

[13]  H. Libshitz,et al.  Multiple myeloma: appearance at MR imaging. , 1992, Radiology.