Campos-Hernández LD, Carillo-Mezo R, Bourlon-Cuellar R, Sarré-Álvarez D, Sánchez-Cortázar J, Gómez-Pérez MG, Coronel-Ayala OF, Bourlon RC

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 745-754
PDF size: 1828.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

In patients with malignant disease, treatment options and prognosis depend significantly on the presence of metastases. Studies have shown that MRI combines high spatial resolution and excellent soft tissue contrast, which gives better detection and characterization of parenchymal lesions and at bone tissue. The role of images in the approach of patients with multiple myeloma consists of recognizing the effects of myeloma cells in the skeleton. For staging, under the protocol of full body (Body Mets), different protocols have been used, among which highlight: inversion recovery sequences, eco-planar gradient, and T1 after administration of contrast agent. The direct visualization of the bone marrow allows evaluating the extension of a disease and the ef-fects of therapy. Disease of the bone marrow in the presence of multiple myeloma is identified as magnetic resonance images of decreasing fat signal in the T1 sequences. STIR and T2 sequences are the most sensitive to see these changes. In patients with multiple myeloma protocol Body Mets visualizes more bone lesions compared with CT, particularly in non-osteolytic regions and also clearly demarcated extramedullary soft tissue tumors.

REFERENCES

1. Brauck K, Zenge O, Vogt F, Quick H, et al. Feasibility of whole body MR with T2- and T1-weighted real-time steady-state free precession sequences during continuous table movement to depict metastases. Radiology 2008;246.

2. Angtuaco E, Fassas A, Walker R, Sethi R, Barlogie B. Multiple myeloma: Review and diagnostic imaging. Radiology 2004;231:11-23.

3. Meyer C, Vagal A, Seaman D. Put your back into it: Pathologic conditions of the spine at chest CT. Radiographics 2011;31:1425-1441.

4. Jung H, Lee WH, Mc Cauley T, Ha KY, et al. Discrimination of metastatic from acute osteoporotic compression spinal fractures with MR imaging. Radiographics 2003;23:179-187.

5. Hanrahan CJ, Christensen C, Crim J. Currents concepts in the evaluation of multiple myeloma with MR imaging and FDG PET/CT. Radiographics 2010;30:127-142.

6. Katsuyuki N, Kobayashi M, Takahashi S, Nakata S, et al. Whole body MRI for detecting metastatic bone tumors: Comparison with the bone scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR 2001;177:229-236.

7. Cascini G, Falcone C, Console D, Restuccia A, et al. Wholebody MRI and TC/PET in multiple myeloma patients during staging and after treatment: personal experience in a longitudinal study. Radiol Med 2013;118:930-948.

8. Daldrup-Link H, Franzlus C, Link T, Laukamp D, et al. Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults, comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR 2001;177:229-236.

9. Kellenberger C, Epelman M, Miller S, Babyn P. Fast STIR whole-body MR imaging in children. Radiographics 2004;24:1317-1330.

10. Schaemmer HP, Schafer J, Pfannenberg C, Radny P, et al. Fast whole-assessment of metastatic disease using a novel magnetic imaging system, initial experiences. Invest Radiol 2005;40:64-71.

11. Schmidt G, Baur-Melnyk A, Herzog P, Schmid R, et al. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance image tumor staging with the use of parallel imaging versus dual-modality positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Experience on a 32-channel system. Investigative Radiology 2005;40:743-753.

12. Barreras M. Clasificación de fracturas toracolumbares. Ortho-tips 2010;6:114-121.

13. Vahlensieck M, Reiser M. Tumores óseos y de partes blandas. En: Vashlensieck, Reiser, editores. 3ª ed. Resonancia magnética músculo-esquelética. Madrid: Editorial Médica Panamericana, 2003;514-516.