MRI in multiple myeloma : a pictorial review of diagnostic and post-treatment findings

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in the diagnostic work-up of patients with multiple myeloma. Since 2014, MRI findings are included in the new diagnostic criteria proposed by the International Myeloma Working Group. Patients with smouldering myeloma presenting with more than one unequivocal focal lesion in the bone marrow on MRI are considered having symptomatic myeloma requiring treatment, regardless of the presence of lytic bone lesions. However, bone marrow evaluation with MRI offers more than only morphological information regarding the detection of focal lesions in patients with MM. The overall performance of MRI is enhanced by applying dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging sequences, providing additional functional information on bone marrow vascularization and cellularity. This pictorial review provides an overview of the most important imaging findings in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, smouldering myeloma and multiple myeloma, by performing a 'total' MRI investigation with implications for the diagnosis, staging and response assessment. Main message aEuro cent Conventional MRI diagnoses multiple myeloma by assessing the infiltration pattern. aEuro cent Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI diagnoses multiple myeloma by assessing vascularization and perfusion. aEuro cent Diffusion weighted imaging evaluates bone marrow composition and cellularity in multiple myeloma. aEuro cent Combined morphological and functional MRI provides optimal bone marrow assessment for staging. aEuro cent Combined morphological and functional MRI is of considerable value in treatment follow-up

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).

Abstract PURPOSE: To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. RESULTS: Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).

Abstract PURPOSE: To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years \ub1 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. RESULTS: Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P 64 .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P 64 .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P 64 .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P 64 .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis