Authors
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare FDG PET; whole-body MRI; and the reference standard, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy, to determine the best imaging technique for assessment of disease activity in multiple myeloma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (13 women, 11 men; mean age, 67.1 years; range, 44-83 years) with bone marrow biopsy-proven multiple myeloma were included in the study. All patients underwent PET/CT and whole-body MRI within 10 days of each other. Eight patients underwent more than one follow-up PET/CT and whole-body MRI examination, for a total of 34 pairs of images. Activity was defined as lesions with a maximum standardized uptake value greater than 2.5 at PET and as evidence of marrow packing at whole-body MRI. PET and whole-body MRI results were correlated with findings at bone marrow aspiration biopsy. RESULTS: PET had a sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 75%, positive predictive value of 81%, and negative predictive value of 50% (p = 0.08). Whole-body MRI had a sensitivity of 68%, specificity of 83%, positive predictive value of 88%, and negative predictive value of 59% (p = 0.01). In 62% of cases, PET and whole-body MRI findings were concordant. When PET and whole-body MRI findings were concordant and positive, no false-positive results were found, yielding a specificity and a positive predictive value of 100% (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Whole-body MRI performed better than PET in the assessment of disease activity, having a higher sensitivity and specificity. The positive predictive value of whole-body MRI in the assessment of active disease was high at 88%. When used in combination and with concordant findings, PET and whole-body MRI were found to have a specificity and positive predictive value of 100%, which may be of value to clinicians assessing the effectiveness of aggressive and expensive treatment regimens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shortt et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: