Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is there any complimentary role of F-18 NaF PET/CT in detecting of osseous involvement of multiple myeloma? A comparative study for F-18 FDG PET/CT and F-18 FDG NaF PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Hematology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a disease characterized by a monoclonal plasma cell population in the bone marrow whereby osseous involvement is a predominant feature. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the combined use of F-18 FDG and F-18 NaF PET/CT in the skeletal assessment of patients with MM and to compare the efficacy of these two PET tracers regarding detection of myeloma-indicative osseous lesions. A total of 26 patients (14 females and 12 males, mean age 61.8 ± 1.8 years (range 40–81 years)) with MM diagnosed according to standard criteria. All patients underwent both F-18 FDG PET/CT and F-18 NaF PET/CT scans within 1 week after the completion of the usual staging workup for MM. In total, approximately 128 focal F-18 FDG avid skeletal lesions were detected; the stage I (n = 5) patients had 10 bone lesions, the stage II (n = 11) patients had 43 lesions, and the stage III (n = 10) patients demonstrated 75 focal bone lesions. F-18 NaF PET/CTs demonstrated fewer myeloma indicative lesions than F-18 FDG PET/CTs. Totally, 57 focal bone lesions were detected with whole body F-18 NaF PET/CT (mean 2.19 ± 0.34, between 1 and 9 lesions); the five stage I patients had 6 bone lesions, the 11 stage II pts had 18 lesions, and the ten stage III patients demonstrated 33 focal bone lesions. On the other hand, F-18 NaF PET/CT demonstrated additional 135 bone lesions defined as rib fractures and other findings due to degenerative changes. In conclusion, our study implies that F-18 NaF PET/CT scan did not actually aid for assessing the myelomatous bone lesions in patients with MM. Therefore, a complementary F-18 NaF PET/CT may be an accurate modality for detecting of bone fracture in patients with MM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bianchi G, Ghobrial IM (2014) Biological and clinical implications of clonal heterogeneity and clonal evolution in multiple myeloma. Curr Cancer Ther Rev 10(2):70–79

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Esteve FR, Roodman GD (2007) Pathophysiology of myeloma bone disease. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 20(4):613–624, Review

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Palumbo A, Anderson K (2011) Multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 364:1046–1060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walker RC, Brown TL, Jones-Jackson LB, De Blanche L, Bartel T (2012) Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med 53:1091–1101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu¨tje S, de Rooy JW, Croockewit S, Koedam E, Oyen WJ, Raymakers RA (2009) Role of radiography, MRI and FDG PET/CT in diagnosing, staging and therapeutical evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 88:1161–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kröpil P, Fenk R, Fritz LB, Blondin D, Kobbe G, Mödder U, Cohnen M (2008) Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 18:51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gleeson TG, Moriarty J, Shortt CP, Gleeson JP, Fitzpatrick P, Byrne B, McHugh J, O’Connell M, O’Gorman P, Eustace SJ (2009) Accuracy of whole-body low-dose multidetector CT (WBLDCT) versus skeletal survey in the detection of myelomatous lesions, and correlation of disease distribution with whole-body MRI (WBMRI). Skeletal Radiol 38:225–236

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mihailovic J, Goldsmith SJ (2015) Multiple myeloma: 18F-FDG-PET/CT and diagnostic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 45(1):16–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Breyer RJ, Mulligan ME, Smith SE, Line BR, Badros AZ (2006) Comparison of imaging with FDG PET/CT with other imaging modalities in myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 35:632–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ak I, Gulbas Z (2011) F-18 FDG uptake of bone marrow on PET/CT scan: it’s correlation with CD38/CD138 expressing myeloma cells in bone marrow of patients with multiple myeloma. Ann Hematol 90(1):81–87

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu YY, Chen JH, Lin WY, Liang JA, Wang HY, Tsai SC, Kao CH (2012) FDG PET or PET/CT for detecting intramedullary and extramedullary lesions in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med 37(9):833–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Park S, Lee SJ, Chang WJ, Maeng CH, Hong JY, Choi MK, Kim YS, Jung CW, Jang JH, Kim SJ, Kim WS, Choi JY, Kim K (2014) Positive correlation between baseline PET or PET/CT findings and clinical parameters in multiple myeloma patients. Acta Haematol 131(4):193–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schirrmeister H, Bommer M, Buck AK, Müller S, Messer P, Bunjes D, Döhner H, Bergmann L, Reske SN (2002) Initial results in the assessment of multiple myeloma using 18F-FDG PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 29:361–366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Durie BG, Waxman AD, D’Agnolo A, Williams CM, Wholebody (2002) 18F-FDG PET identifies high-risk myeloma. J Nucl Med 43:1457–1463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Vacca A, Racanelli V (2006) (18)F-FDG PET/CT: a review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med 15(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Durie BG (2006) The role of anatomic and functional staging in myeloma: description of Durie/Salmon plus staging system. Eur J Cancer 42:1539–1543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Czernin J, Satyamurthy N, Schiepers C (2010) Molecular mechanisms of bone 18F-NaF deposition. J Nucl Med 51(12):1826–1829

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hawkins RA, Choi Y, Huang SC, Hoh CK, Dahlbom M, Schiepers C, Satyamurthy N, Barrio JR, Phelps ME (1992) Evaluation of the skeletal kinetics of fluorine-18-fluoride ion with PET. J Nucl Med 33:633–642

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Flusser G, Zuriel L, Kollender Y, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, Ron I, Mishani E (2004) Assessment of malignant skeletal disease: initial experience with 18F-fluoride PET/CT and comparison between 18F-fluoride PET and 18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:272–278

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoon SH, Kim KS, Kang SY, Song HS, Jo KS, Choi BH, Lee SJ, Yoon JK, An YS (2013) Usefulness of (18) F-fluoride PET/CT in breast cancer patients with osteosclerotic bone metastases. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47(1):27–35

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aparici CM, Win AZ (2014) Use of NaF-18-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of bone metastasis from papillary renal cell carcinoma. World J Nucl Med 13(2):135–137

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. International MyelomaWorking Group (2003) Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 121:749–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV (2009) Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 23(1):3–9, Review

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rajkumar SV, Merlini G, San Miguel JF (2012) Haematological cancer: redefining myeloma. Nat Rev Clin Onco 9(9):494–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang X, Koch S (2009) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography potential pitfalls and artifacts. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 38(4):156–169, Review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O, Tosi P, Tacchetti P, Cangini D, Perrone G (2007) A prospective comparison of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 92:50–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nanni C, Zamagni E, Farsad M, Castellucci P, Tosi P, Cangini D, Salizzoni E, Canini R, Cavo M, Fanti S (2006) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of bone involvement in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: preliminary results. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:525–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dimopoulos M, Terpos E, Comenzo RL, Tosi P, Beksac M, Sezer O, Siegel D, Lokhorst H, Kumar S, Rajkumar SV (2009) International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma. Leukemia 23:1545–1556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fonti R, Salvatore B, Quarantelli M, Sirignano C, Segreto S, Petruzziello F, Catalano L, Liuzzi R, Rotoli B, Del Vecchio S (2008) 18F-FDG PET/CT, 99mTc-MIBI, and MRI in evaluation of patients with multiple myeloma. J Nucl Med 49:195–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Palumbo A, Mina R (2013) Management of older adults with multiple myeloma. Blood Rev 27:133–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van Lammeren-Venema D, Regelink JC, Riphagen II, Zweegman S, Hoekstra OS, Zijlstra JM (2012) 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in assessment of myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Cancer 15 118(8):1971–1981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sager S, Ergül N, Ciftci H, Cetin G, Güner SI, Cermik TF (2011) The value of FDG PET/CT in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 40:843–847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weng WW, Dong MJ, Zhang J, Yang J, Xu Q, Zhu YJ, Liu NH (2014) A systematic review of MRI, scintigraphy, FDG-PET and PET/CT for diagnosis of multiple myeloma related bone disease—which is best? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(22):9879–9884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Xu F, Liu F, Pastakia B (2014) Different lesions revealed by 18F-FDG PET/CT and 18F-NaF PET/CT in patients with multiple myeloma. Clin Nucl Med 39(9)

  35. Sachpekidis C, Goldschmidt H, Hose D, Pan L, Cheng C, Kopka K, Haberkorn U, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A (2014) PET/CT studies of multiple myeloma using (18) F-FDG and (18) F-NaF: comparison of distribution patterns and tracers’ pharmacokinetics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41(7):1343–1353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ludwig H, Kumpan W, Sinzinger H (1982) Radiography and bone scintigraphy in multiple myeloma: a comparative analysis. Br J Radiol 55:173–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nishiyama Y, Tateishi U, Shizukuishi K, Shishikura A, Yamazaki E, Shibata H, Yoneyama T, Ishigatsubo Y, Inoue T (2013) Role of 18F-fluoride PET/CT in the assessment of multiple myeloma: initial experience. Ann Nucl Med 27(1):78–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, Fonseca R, Rajkumar SV, Offord JR, Larson DR, Plevak ME, Therneau TM, Greipp PR (2003) Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc 78(1):21–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gunn WG, Conley A, Deininger L, Olson SD, Prockop DJ, Gregory CA (2006) A crosstalk between myeloma cells and marrow stromal cells stimulates production of DKK1 and interleukin-6: a potential role in the development of lytic bone disease and tumor progression in multiple myeloma. Stem Cells 24(4):986–991

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Giuliani N, Colla S, Rizzoli V (2004) New insight in the mechanism of osteoclast activation and formation in multiple myeloma: focus on the receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand (RANKL). Exp Hematol 32(8):685–691, Review

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi SJ, Cruz JC, Craig F, Chung H, Devlin RD, Roodman GD, Alsina M (2000) Macrophage inflammatory protein 1-alpha is a potential osteoclast stimulatory factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 15 96(2):671–675

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, 26480, Eskisehir, Turkey

    İlknur Ak & Hasan Onner

  2. Department of Hematology, School of Medicine, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Olga Meltem Akay

Authors
  1. İlknur Ak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hasan Onner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olga Meltem Akay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İlknur Ak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ak, İ., Onner, H. & Akay, O.M. Is there any complimentary role of F-18 NaF PET/CT in detecting of osseous involvement of multiple myeloma? A comparative study for F-18 FDG PET/CT and F-18 FDG NaF PET/CT. Ann Hematol 94, 1567–1575 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-015-2410-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-015-2410-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation